Iran’s Bet on the Oil “River”
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, In The NewsThe latest threats by Iran appear to be hitting a more sensitive area of concern - economic.
Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions.
As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran’s economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country’s position as the world’s fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.
“Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran’s political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects,” he told Iranian state radio.
Add to this mix, the continuing unbelievable claims Iran’s leadership is making regarding the Holocaust.
Given these reckless statements, how does Iran expect other nations to react?
In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a “scientific” conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a “myth”.
Mr Danesh-Jafari’s comments echoed fears voiced by energy market analysts after crude oil prices last week rose above $64 (£36.50) a barrel as hopes faded of a diplomatic solution to the dispute.
Last week, Manouchehr Takin, of the Centre for Global Energy Studies, argued that crude prices could hit $100 a barrel if Iran stopped exporting. “Supply and demand are very tightly balanced,” he said.
Mr Danesh-Jafari’s warning added weight to veiled threats by Iran’s president on Saturday. Iran had a “cheap means” of achieving its nuclear “rights”, Mr Ahmadinejad said, adding: “You [the west] need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation.”
Looks the political chess game that Iran had been embarked upon is heating up into that of a fiercer, high stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em Poker.
Is Iran’s leadership fool hearty enough to go “all in?”
This entry was posted on Monday, January 16th, 2006 and is filed under Blogging, In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am
That’s where you’re wrong Mr Ahmadinejad: the world doesn’t need the Iranian Nation, just the oil that is sitting under the Iranian nation.
I can here the “No Blood For Oil” chants starting already.
January 16th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Well, can we afford to go “all in” given that we’re overstretched as it is?
And ford…comments like those certainly embolden the “No Blood For Oil” chanters. Are you saying that we should invade Iran for their oil?
January 16th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
I agree that we’re stretched too thin to invade Iran. I’m hoping (but doubtful) that the UN will step up on this one. We can all agree that it’s time to find an alternative source of fuel, but that’s at least 5 years away. If Iran stops exporting oil, even for a few weeks, it will lead to worldwide economic disaster. I think we’re stuck with blood for oil. Hopefully, it will be some blood other than US blood. America doesn’t use Iranian oil, but in a global economy, does it really matter?
Embargo’s against offending nations don’t work, so what else can we do?
January 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Another interesting idea would be what would the new Shiite majority of Iraq think about us invading Iran? What if they pull a saudi arabia and say not from our country. how would that hamper any invasion efforts. We’re not going to attack Iran. can’t be done given our position in Iraq… Well it could, but only an idiot would try it.
January 16th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
The ideal would be as ford suggests, another nation steps up to plate and provides the necessary deterrent force to deal with Iran’s threats.
It’ll be interesting to see what conclusion the UN reaches, although I won’t hold my breath … somehow even a condemnation from the Council doesn’t seem like it will elicit more than a “Bah” from Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Can we afford to not go “all in” if Iran is foolhardy enough to make good on their threats?
Whether we like it or not, the US has a permanent seat around the table and there are times when a bluff needs to be called.
January 16th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Have you read about theFischer-Tropsh method? It turns coal into liquid. And it even makes a cleaner burning fuel. Look for that to be the next frontier in oil production. In fact, it’s already begun here and elsewhere.
And by the way, we’re sitting on more coal/gas potential than in all of Saudi Arabia. So this whole blood for oil nonsense is just that…nonsense. We’re just being lazy. If we were smart, we’d earmark some of our vast Pentagon billions for alternative fuel processing since this is now no longer simply an economic consideration, but more of a national security issue.
And to Denise…
So you’re actually backing the invasion of a country simply for their natural resources? I’m sorry, but do either of you actually realize what you’re saying? That a country’s sovereignty comes AFTER our need for their resources?
Jeezus…you people are actually scaring me.
January 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Justin,
I agree alternate energy sources are a viable avenue and must be pursued.
The question really is responsibility of a nation, in this case Iran, in its words and actions.
Calm down … no, not simply for their natural resources per se.
This is a discussion about strategic implication — is Iran’s rhetoric and actions, if it matches that rhetoric, not a concern for the impact upon the global stage?
Once a precedent has been set of ignoring the type of actions that Iran is promising, then what will happen? World chaos and results that will most assuredly scare us all.
If Iran goes “all in,” then someone has to be ready to call.
What do you feel is the criteria upon which a nation “calls” Iran?
January 16th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Fischer-Tropsch is a wonderful idea. It’s going to take time to build the plants. Actually, it’ll take longer just to get all the necessary approvals to build the plants. There’s lot’s of oil in ANWR, too. That’s better than invading a country for oil.
The real issue of military action with Iran isn’t oil, it’s their determination to build “the bomb”. By saying “If you try to stop us, we’ll cut off your beloved oil” only serves to escalate the problem.
For all those who said “We should have let the UN handle Iraq”, here’s the UN’s chance to prove their worth.
January 16th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Simply put, it should be about nukes, not oil.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
What about Iraqi oil? Could accelerated investment in Iraqi oil production help meaningfully mitigate Iran’s threats?