Iran halts oil exports to British, French firms

[News_Editor]

Iran halts oil exports to British, French firms

2012-02-19 20:42:03 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN, IRAN (BNO NEWS) -- Iran has stopped the export of crude oil to British and French companies, the oil ministry announced on Sunday. It comes nearly a month after the European Union (EU) decided to ban crude oil imports over Iran's nuclear program.

Alireza Nikzad Rahbar, a spokesman for Iran's Oil Ministry (MOP), said oil exports to British and French companies have been stopped, but gave few other details. "Instead of the British and French companies, we will deliver to new customers," he said, without naming them.

Sunday's announcement is believed to be in retaliation for last month's EU decision to ban the import, purchase and transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. The ban, which includes related finance and insurance, immediately entered into force although already concluded contracts can still be executed until July 1.

As a result of Iran's decision, British and French companies will be unable to execute already concluded contracts until the July 1 deadline. Iran earlier also warned that it will soon cut oil exports to the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal unless long term deals are made and payments by the EU states are guaranteed.

International concerns regarding Iran's nuclear activities have been increasing for decades, and last month's new sanctions add to the already existing EU sanctions. While Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, many countries contend it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"The measures are designed to significantly affect Iran's financial capacity to pursue its nuclear program, by curtailing its revenue from crude oil exports," EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said earlier this month, referring to the new sanctions. "By targeting this important source of revenue, we are strongly increasing pressure on the Iranian government, whilst avoiding negative effects as far as possible on the wider Iranian population."

Oil exports account for approximately 80 percent of Iran's exports and 70 percent of the government's revenues. The 27-nation European Union accounts for up to 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-19

[GentlemanJim]

Well, it's not exactly a surprise I guess, the writing was on the wall, and Iran has the right to do it. It would be interesting to know exactly which companies are affected when anyone sees an appropriate link.

[aussiebebe]

France only buys small quantities of Iranian crude but if Iran tries to compensate for falls in exports with price hikes to Asian customers, prices will surely rise globally. While the Eurozone saga lurches from one crisis to the next, if Iran actually carries out it's threat to cut off Greece, Spain and Italy it could be the final straw as they'll have to source far more expensive alternative oil elsewhere. Not a pleasant scenario.

[flying]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now the bought friends of the instigators reap what they help sow .....Of course Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

Edited February 19, 2012 by flying

[nurofiend]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

[Jingthing]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

What is the name of the impudent nation and what is the name of the paid for bully?

So this "group" do you reckon they have done any un-certifiable crime? Not even sure what you mean by certified crime in the context of the motivations for the sanctions against the Perzianist^TM regime. This is foreign policy, not a court case. I think you know very well what the real beef is against Iran from the west. Granted doesn't mean you have to agree with the motivations, but they are certainly justified and valid motivations.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

Like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.?

[nurofiend]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

Like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.?

you know when someone asks a question... there's no need for the when answering them.

[Jingthing]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

Like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.?

you know when someone asks a question... there's no need for the when answering them.

Does it bother you when people answer a question with a question? That's interesting.

[Jingthing]

Does it bother you when people answer a question with a question? That's interesting.

nope, just when people answer them like a smartass.. and the phrase 'bothers' gives it far more importance than it deserves.

It's a good question, actually. I haven't really thought about it and don't feel like I'm the person to answer it. It does seem doubtful that any country does everything in a reactive way and Iran is definitely a country (even if their goal is for Israel not to be a country). I thought the attempt on the Saudi ambassador's life by Iran was an interesting example. Reactive or not reactive? Today the president of Iran announced that HIV was created by western pharmaceutical companies. Reactive, not reactive, or terminal insanity? This could get into the realm of philosophy. Edited February 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[nurofiend]

Does it bother you when people answer a question with a question? That's interesting.

nope, just when people answer them like a smartass.. and the phrase 'bothers' gives it far more importance than it deserves.

It's a good question, actually. I haven't really thought about it and don't feel like I'm the person to answer it. It does seem doubtful that any country does everything in a reactive way and Iran is definitely a country. I thought the attempt on the Saudi ambassadors life by Iran was an interesting example. Reactive or not reactive? This could get into the realm of philosophy.

well you know as well as i do that i wasn't asking if every single thing they do is reactive and that i was speaking about the current sanctions situation.

and i did mean to get an answer like what you gave, it was an aggressive action... so there you have it.

and i didn't mean philosophically, as obviously every action on every side would be reactive right back to whatever was the very first instigator of bad relations.

Edited February 19, 2012 by nurofiend

[Jingthing]

Rather relevant to the question, an analysis of what makes Iran tick these days:

http://www.washingto...KR_story_1.html

Bombastic claims of nuclear achievement, threats to close critical international waterways, alleged terrorist plots and hints of diplomatic outreach — all are emanating from Tehran right now.

...

While the Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations looked at nuclear weapons as tools of deterrence, for the conservatives they are a critical means of solidifying Iran’s preeminence in the region. A hegemonic Iran requires a robust and extensive nuclear apparatus.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[nurofiend]

Rather relevant to the question, an analysis of what makes Iran tick these days:

http://www.washingto...KR_story_1.html

While the Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations looked at nuclear weapons as tools of deterrence, for the conservatives they are a critical means of solidifying Iran’s preeminence in the region. A hegemonic Iran requires a robust and extensive nuclear apparatus.

there are arguments on whether iran should have the right to nuclear weapon capabilities.

only for the reason - why shouldn't they have the right to? when other countries in their region do ie pakistan and israel... and yes, i do fimly believe that israel has them.

we all know having these capabilities gives you power and sway on the world stage.

however and it's a big however.. their regime is unstable and unpredictable.

would they strike israel? they certainly have made some comments that give israel very legitimate reasons to worry about the possibility.

and i'm pretty sure iran fear israel in this way too.

i suppose the only reason for having two minds about this is based on the hypocrisy of countries with nuclear arms saying, "no you can't have nuclear arms."

it's certainly not based on... it would be good for the world for iran to have nuclear arms.

obviously my leanings swing a lot more toward them not having these capabilities.

and obviously in a flowers in your hair, everyone holding hands world, no one having nuclear weaponry would be the aim... but then reality smashes that one into smithereens with a mighty dismissive hammer.

i do believe that if irans intentions of owning nuclear weaponry are real, and i think they are, it's more based on giving them more power in their region and the world than it's based on them 'pushing that button' as soon as they're up and running... but would it remain defensive?

anyway, war on iran would only be succesful of completely dismembering any nuclear arms capabilities if they nuked the whole country. otherwise it would only stall it and what then? just blow the crap out of them every few years... doesn't seem like any answer to me.

i hope they keep trying every window of negotiation and then try some more, and then more because if it goes to full out war, it might just be felt all over the world.

Edited February 19, 2012 by nurofiend

[flying]

Rather relevant to the question, an analysis of what makes Iran tick these days:

Actually not relevant/on Topic at all....Just more Israeli/US Spam

Will only take this thread where all others go when Iran is concerned.

This thread is about Sanctions & their results...Not yet another chance to cheer lead reasons why Israel should be allowed

to bite yet again those they wish to control.

The facts remain....Iran has committed no crime deserving sanctions....As inspectors have reported...So the result

of sanctions now surface & the cheerleaders will still complain....Yet they themselves cheered for the sanctions.

Edited February 19, 2012 by flying

[Pakboong]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

Like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.?

Was that the one where the drunken used car salesman tried to strike up a deal with the Mexican Drug Cartel?

That particular incident was so poorly designed, it was forgotten very early on. You will no longer hear about it in even the MSM.

[Steely Dan]

Sanctions.............a Two Way Street

When folks want to impose sanctions on a group who has done no actual certifiable crime...It is nothing more than

forcing isolationism on them.

Now watch as the bought friends of the instigators they reap what they sow .....Israel & the US will call this further acts of war<sic>

Yet unlike these reactions...what caused them have been a One Way Street imposed by a impudent nation & their paid for bully.

would i be right in thinking every action that iran has carried out has been reactive?

Like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.?

Or the storming of the British embassy.

[Pakboong]

The point below is factual to a significant degree and should make the recent series of terrorism attempts by alleged Iranian intelligence assets very suspect.

"..None of this makes sense. The IRGC is famous for making sure that responsibility for its actions can never be traced to Iran. It usually operates through proxies. Yet suddenly here it is sending $100,000 (£63,000) from a known IRGC bank account to hire assassins in Mexico. The beneficiaries from such a plot are evident. There will be those on the neo-con right and extreme supporters of Israel who have long been pressing for a war with Iran. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have been vociferously asserting that Iran is orchestrating Shia pro-democracy protests, but without finding many believers in the rest of the world. Their claims are now likely to be taken more seriously in Washington. There will be less pressure on countries like Bahrain to accommodate their Shia populations."

http://www.independe...ce-2369657.html

Edited February 20, 2012 by Pakboong

[johna]

This is a taste of things to come; a war with Iran will drive western economies 6 feet under.

Perhaps that clown Cameron thinks BP can make up the shortfall from Libya?

[Pakboong]

"Loyalty is about supporting your position when you are wrong, anybody will support it when you are right."

Mark Twain

[Scott]

Please stick to the topic of oil exports and related implications in this thread.

[marquess]

Good on the Iranians, I don't think Western countries would be happy having somebody tell them what to do in their own country. Why should the Iranians? The E.U is a taking a big economic gamble that could badly backfire.

[Jingthing]

Rather relevant to the question, an analysis of what makes Iran tick these days:

Actually not relevant/on Topic at all....Just more Israeli/US Spam

Will only take this thread where all others go when Iran is concerned.

This thread is about Sanctions & their results...Not yet another chance to cheer lead reasons why Israel should be allowed

to bite yet again those they wish to control.

The facts remain....Iran has committed no crime deserving sanctions....As inspectors have reported...So the result

of sanctions now surface & the cheerleaders will still complain....Yet they themselves cheered for the sanctions.

Hilarious. You clearly didn't read the article. It concludes by arguing AGAINST sanctions. And yes, oil exports and sanctions, and the motivations behind sanctions are clearly related to the topic. Edited February 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

Iran has to sell tis oil as it is dependent upon the income. The Financial Times has reported that for several months Iran was desperately seeking contracts with Chinese and Indian customers all to no avail.

China and India both demanded discounts which Iran was not willing to give.

China and India are Iran's 2 largest customers and you would expect that they would jump at the chance of getting a steady oil supply. However, they must be worried about the potential for UN imposed sanctions at some point. And of course, there is their usual hardline bargaining tactics.

This is sort of funny. Iran needs the EU markets because they provide the money that keeps the rural subsisides flowing. It is no coincidence that President Ama....(can't spell his name, sorry) is a big backer of the rural subsidies, but the faction that has caused him no end of grief, is opposed to the subsidies. Without the oil sold to the EU, the rural handouts will end and President A. will lose support and eventually be replaced by someone more acceptable to the even more hardline group of clerics.

Hang on to your petticoats as a very strong wind is a blowin'

Edited February 20, 2012 by geriatrickid

[flying]

Hilarious. You clearly didn't read the article.

Baloney ....I read just fine & as usual this is more rhetoric

I agree with the well written comment after the article that starts with......

ptgrunner wrote:

The problem with this article, as with all Takeyh's article on Iran, is that we know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. and people such as Takeyh continue to slyly insinuate that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and as such, has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. This is their stated intent and all evidence points to the fact that this is exactly what they are doing. The U.S. does not allow the IAEA to tour their nuclear facilities and monitor their activities....

Edited February 20, 2012 by flying

[sparebox2]

Yes.

That should teach the Roast Beef and Snail eaters a lesson.

[koheesti]

Hilarious. You clearly didn't read the article.

Baloney ....I read just fine & as usual this is more rhetoric

I agree with the well written comment after the article that starts with......

ptgrunner wrote:

The problem with this article, as with all Takeyh's article on Iran, is that we know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. and people such as Takeyh continue to slyly insinuate that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and as such, has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. This is their stated intent and all evidence points to the fact that this is exactly what they are doing. The U.S. does not allow the IAEA to tour their nuclear facilities and monitor their activities....

"The problem with this article, as with all Takeyh's article on Iran, is that we know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons."

Who is "we" and how do they know?

Edited February 20, 2012 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

Rather relevant to the question, an analysis of what makes Iran tick these days:

Actually not relevant/on Topic at all....Just more Israeli/US Spam

Hilarious. You clearly didn't read the article. It concludes by arguing AGAINST sanctions.

Jingthing is correct. The article argues against sanctions.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

"The problem with this article, as with all Takeyh's article on Iran, is that we know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons."

Who is "we" and how do they know?

At the end of the day ....who cares who *we* are?

In the meantime it could be all the inspectors that have been going there for near a decade now....All the while the US allows none....Israel allows none

US breaks NPT by not drawing down as promised.....

Yet it is always Iran under the microscope.....

Articles like these.............

http://www.twf.org/N...3/0311-NPT.html

Read what it says about Iran

If you did not read the date at the start of the article you would be hard pressed to know it is near a decade old.

Sanctions are WRONGLY leveled against Iran...Yet no others..

Suppositions are WRONGLY leveled against Iran...Yet no others

Who are those that make the demands? What gives them the right?

Nukes a problem? Let all that have them lay them down then....

They that have them arguably have the strongest Navies, Air Forces & Ground Forces already........

So why the hell not?

You know why not & so do I & so does Iran...Is it any wonder

Edited February 20, 2012 by flying

[flying]

Nuclear Pots Call Iranian Kettle Black

[flying]

Jingthing is correct. The article argues against sanctions.

Does not matter if it is all based on the same old BS supposition that goes back over a decade.