Iran halts oil exports to British, French firms

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted. This topic is about oil exports.

[nong38]

Iran is the biggest single threat to world security at this moment in time. The ordinary people of the country are not the problem it is the leaders and what they are doing in the nuclear domain. Their unwillingness to let UN inspectors into certain sites is suspicious and some of these sites have been designed to repel attacks from conventional bombs ( being built in mountain sides ) why do that for nuclear power to generate electricity? The Russians and Chinese dont seem able to support the west, at the moment, I hope it will not come to haunt them later but if a nuclear device is being developed it will have serious consequences across the globe. Once the genini is out of the bottle you cannot put it back.This year will be the year of descisions and I am not hopeful, anyone who is flying from or to Europe is going close if anything kicks off and it might , it just might. I dont think Iran has to many supporters in the region as it would change the balance of power, on the other hand an attack on the regime might galvanise the people to support the regime, so I see some gunboat diplomacy in the Straits of Homouz, some clandestine attacks to weaken progress and then we hope for the best, I am glad I dont have to make the decisions,,but, if I were as Israeli I would be very worried and a pre-emptive strike is on the table if undercover operations fail to deliver.

[flying]

Their unwillingness to let UN inspectors into certain sites is suspicious and some of these sites have been designed to repel attacks from conventional bombs ( being built in mountain sides ) why do that for nuclear power to generate electricity?

Do you realize that neither of the two complaining ( USA & Israel ) Allow any inspectors to their sites?

Do you also realize Iranian Scientist are being targeted & murdered? Would that be a possible reason to not let folks in? So they may

see how big a bomb they need to drop on you? Gauge how deep or how thick the bunker is? Who owns the inspectors ultimately?

The inspectors none of the complaining countries allow in THEIR SITES?

As for being built into a mountain.... Would it be better near the sea like Fukushima?

I am not saying Iran is not building anything & I am not saying they are...I am saying this is a ruse to get folks riled up to stand behind yet another unprovoked attack on a country. It is WRONG period

As for the main topic....as always it is a distributors right to choose their customers. As is Iran's right to halt oil to customers.

Especially customers who economically hurt their citizens with economic sanctions.

While your at it look up what happened to Saddam when he decided he would no longer accept US Dollars for oil.

Suddenly he was claimed to be in possession of WMD's

Next go look what happened to Gadaffi when he decided to shut down Euro access to oil from his country.

Perhaps Iran is making a Nuke....Perhaps not

But do realize this claim has been going on for over a decade now.

Those who claim it have various reasons none of them suitable for a unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation

If anything THAT in ITSELF is a very good reason to have a NUKE...To Just Be Left Alone...As Pakistan, India, N Korea, Israel are left alone. Posts like yours always sound like Iran is a bunch of madmen & that is why we should fear them having a Nuke....Yet history shows a different group to fear. Iran has not been aggressive others sure have though.

In 1941, the British Empire and Soviet Union invaded Iran to grab its oil fields, an aggression every bit as wanton and illegal as German’s 1939 invasion of Poland. They installed a puppet regime in Tehran.

In 1953, US and British intelligence overthrew Iran’s democratic leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, for trying to nationalize the nation’s oil and use profits there from for social projects. After the west put Shah Pahlevi back on the peacock throne, the US worked with the notoriously brutal Savak secret police to crush all dissent.

After revolution erupted in 1979, bringing to power an Islamic regime that vowed to devote the nation’s oil wealth to social projects, the US and Britain got Saddam, Hussein’s Iraq to invade Iran. After eight years of bloody trench warfare, in which Iraq was financed and armed by the western powers and their Arab oil allies, Iran suffered at least 500,000 casualties. Iran’s western cities were laid waste. Iraq showered poison and burning gas on the Iranians that was supplied by the western powers.

http://lewrockwell.c...argolis267.html

Edited February 25, 2012 by flying

[exeter]

Their unwillingness to let UN inspectors into certain sites is suspicious and some of these sites have been designed to repel attacks from conventional bombs ( being built in mountain sides ) why do that for nuclear power to generate electricity?

Do you realize that neither of the two complaining ( USA & Israel ) Allow any inspectors to their sites?

Do you also realize Iranian Scientist are being targeted & murdered? Would that be a possible reason to not let folks in? So they may

see how big a bomb they need to drop on you? Gauge how deep or how thick the bunker is? Who owns the inspectors ultimately?

The inspectors none of the complaining countries allow in THEIR SITES?

As for being built into a mountain.... Would it be better near the sea like Fukushima?

I am not saying Iran is not building anything & I am not saying they are...I am saying this is a ruse to get folks riled up to stand behind yet another unprovoked attack on a country. It is WRONG period

As for the main topic....as always it is a distributors right to choose their customers. As is Iran's right to halt oil to customers.

Especially customers who economically hurt their citizens with economic sanctions.

While your at it look up what happened to Saddam when he decided he would no longer accept US Dollars for oil.

Suddenly he was claimed to be in possession of WMD's

Next go look what happened to Gadaffi when he decided to shut down Euro access to oil from his country.

Perhaps Iran is making a Nuke....Perhaps not

But do realize this claim has been going on for over a decade now.

Those who claim it have various reasons none of them suitable for a unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation

If anything THAT in ITSELF is a very good reason to have a NUKE...To Just Be Left Alone...As Pakistan, India, N Korea, Israel are left alone. Posts like yours always sound like Iran is a bunch of madmen & that is why we should fear them having a Nuke....Yet history shows a different group to fear. Iran has not been aggressive others sure have though.

In 1941, the British Empire and Soviet Union invaded Iran to grab its oil fields, an aggression every bit as wanton and illegal as German’s 1939 invasion of Poland. They installed a puppet regime in Tehran.

In 1953, US and British intelligence overthrew Iran’s democratic leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, for trying to nationalize the nation’s oil and use profits there from for social projects. After the west put Shah Pahlevi back on the peacock throne, the US worked with the notoriously brutal Savak secret police to crush all dissent.

After revolution erupted in 1979, bringing to power an Islamic regime that vowed to devote the nation’s oil wealth to social projects, the US and Britain got Saddam, Hussein’s Iraq to invade Iran. After eight years of bloody trench warfare, in which Iraq was financed and armed by the western powers and their Arab oil allies, Iran suffered at least 500,000 casualties. Iran’s western cities were laid waste. Iraq showered poison and burning gas on the Iranians that was supplied by the western powers.

http://lewrockwell.c...argolis267.html

You are entitled to your view, I would persoanlly think the world would be a more dangerous place with an Iranian bomb available. They, the Iranian authorites are and have been for a long time been exporting terrorism, in Bangkok only a few days ago, if you are comfirtable with that scenario then I am not for one and I am concerned out what might happen, this year should tell us.

Israel is only suspected of having a bomb, the original members of the "nuclear club" do not want any proliferation, yes to saveguard there own status but the more who have it the more dangerous the world, its a 2 sided coin.

It is up to Iran who it sells its oil to for sure, but they are trying to tell us they need nuclear power for electricity so they dont have much oil left? Really? I think the world is right to be suspicious of what is going on there.

You have you views, firmly held thats your right, they dont happen to be mine and please dont throw in all those red herrings they mean nothing, nothing will change, what has happened is now history, we are where we are today. I am not Jewish but I think I would be concerned if Iran joined the "club" and the whole dynamics of that region and the world would change. The UN inspectors do paint a postitive picture.

[Credo]

The argument against inspectors falls apart with comparisons to other countries. If I get picked up for speeding, I am not justified because other people are going faster. Iran signed a treaty and is breaking the treaty. There may be consequences for that. If they are not making the materials for a bomb, then they should have no problem with inspection. If Iran wants nuclear power for electricity, that's their right. Economically, it is in their interest to save their oil for selling and to generate power with nuclear energy (or solar, or wind etc.).

The US has nuclear weapon....no secret there.

Sanctions are justified.

If Iran wants to make a first strike on the oil exports, by stopping them, that is within their right provided they aren't breaking any contractual agreements, which would be pretty minor.

[flying]

The argument against inspectors falls apart with comparisons to other countries. If I get picked up for speeding, I am not justified because other people are going faster. Iran signed a treaty and is breaking the treaty. There may be consequences for that. If they are not making the materials for a bomb, then they should have no problem with inspection. If Iran wants nuclear power for electricity, that's their right. Economically, it is in their interest to save their oil for selling and to generate power with nuclear energy (or solar, or wind etc.).

The US has nuclear weapon....no secret there.

Sanctions are justified.

If Iran wants to make a first strike on the oil exports, by stopping them, that is within their right provided they aren't breaking any contractual agreements, which would be pretty minor.

Well yes & I would rather there were no nukes at all....

As to the analogy of speeding yes except in your analogy case it is the cops who are all breaking the laws.

As for breaking treaties....Come on we have been over it 100 times.....US has long been in default on the treaty & Israel has never signed it...N Korea walked away from it...It is a miracle Iran is even trying to remain compliant

Sanctions are justified? As in guilty till proven innocent? up to you but it is not Iran who is making a 1str strike as you call it on oil exports.

[flying]

You are entitled to your view, I would persoanlly think the world would be a more dangerous place with an Iranian bomb available.

Israel is only suspected of having a bomb, the original members of the "nuclear club" do not want any proliferation, yes to saveguard there own status but the more who have it the more dangerous the world, its a 2 sided coin.

It is up to Iran who it sells its oil to for sure, but they are trying to tell us they need nuclear power for electricity so they dont have much oil left? Really? I think the world is right to be suspicious of what is going on there.

You have you views, firmly held thats your right, they dont happen to be mine and please dont throw in all those red herrings they mean nothing, nothing will change, what has happened is now history, we are where we are today. I am not Jewish but I think I would be concerned if Iran joined the "club" and the whole dynamics of that region and the world would change. The UN inspectors do paint a postitive picture.

Yes & you are also entitled as we all are to our opinions...

As for a safer world? I can only go by the facts....Iran has never attacked another country in over 200 years

Nukes? Only one country has ever used them on a civilian population in anger.

Israel suspected? surely your more up on historical facts than that? Even now they have Nukes on subs & land

I mean the facts go way back & are openly admitted...here is just 1

http://www.guardian..../oct/12/israel1

Nothing at all wrong with this picture?

Israel basically threatening Iran with being Nuked? All teh while claiming it is dangerous for Iran to have a nuke?

You cannot make this insanity up....

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines-off-iran-coast-1.293005

Yes I would rather that none existed at all.

But Pandoras box has long been open...

At this point again your free to have an opinion on who should or should not have them....

The reality is it is not our decision

If we want to use the fruits of the trees/ FACTS to decide who is aggressive...Well then the folks with the Nukes should be the 1st to give them up.

If not then at the very least it is not their place to tell others who can & cannot have what they themselves possess.

Sorry to say......an armed society is a polite society...I did not design it but there it is.

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[Credo]

Over course when you say they have not attacked another country for over 200 years, then you believe that the take over of the US embassy as well as assaults on other embassies are not attacks on a country. I believe the embassies are considered to be a part of the territory of the country.

[flying]

Over course when you say they have not attacked another country for over 200 years, then you believe that the take over of the US embassy as well as assaults on other embassies are not attacks on a country. I believe the embassies are considered to be a part of the territory of the country.

You know I would like to talk about that because I believe the events that led to that take over of something on their soil is important...

But it would be too far OT I'm sure.

But if you have not read the reasons it occurred you should go read about it,,, It is interesting & has bearing on what has come after.

[Credo]

I have a feeling that what you think is OT is when you really can't justify Iran's actions. By the way, I do know a little about the subject. My knowledge, by the way is personal. Very personal. It has been augmented by a fair amount of reading.

To put things simply, the Iranian government is a loose cannon. They have zero respect for anyone or anything that is the slightest out of variance with their opinion. They have no respect for Embassies, they have no respect for international treaties, they perform international terrorism. The government is about as dishonorable as any. They reign by fear and chaos.

You can continue to support them as much as you want, but remember 'none are as blind as those who will not see.'

They probably have a contractual obligation to deliver oil to the British and French, but even that minor obligation will be ignored.

[flying]

I have a feeling that what you think is OT is when you really can't justify Iran's actions.

Not at all.....Let me nutshell for you............The event you mentioned occurred during a revolution.....A Revolution brought about mainly by the US once again trying to install a puppet regime in a country that had a legally elected one.

See? Pretty off topic eh? Sorry if I disappointed your lack of expectations of me

[Credo]

So, social and political upheaval is an excuse? And who exactly won that revolution? I think it was the faction that controls the country to this day, or at least an off shoot of it. So you have a government that had no respect for anything then and there is no evidence to support the idea that they have gained any respect over the years.

The government is, quite simply, not to be trusted. They have no history of being trustworthy. Even the most simple contractual arrangement over their oil sales has been broken.

The sooner they are completely isolated, the better.

[flying]

So, social and political upheaval is an excuse? And who exactly won that revolution? I think it was the faction that controls the country to this day, or at least an off shoot of it. So you have a government that had no respect for anything then and there is no evidence to support the idea that they have gained any respect over the years.

The government is, quite simply, not to be trusted. They have no history of being trustworthy. Even the most simple contractual arrangement over their oil sales has been broken.

The sooner they are completely isolated, the better.

You know all the things you say are your opinion & your entitled to it.....At the end of the day the Country is Named IRAN a sovereign nation of Seventy Four Million Iranians......It is THEY that decide their country's fate not us...Not the US Government...Not Israel.

It is your opinion that they should also be isolated.....I cannot begin to understand that sort of thinking except that you must be heavily influenced by the media's prism.

As to which governments can be trusted....well imagine how all those who have been screwed by so called just governments feel.....

Wonder how Iraq citizens feel now?

Wonder how Libyans feel now?

Wonder how Egyptians feel now?

Those are just the recent ones.....History was much more unkind to the oil based countries as they have been screwed with constantly

Enough...........Clean our own homes before we try to clean or tell others how to clean theirs.....As much as many are conditioned to think so...We are not the shining example of liberty & justice we once were.

[Naam]

So, social and political upheaval is an excuse? And who exactly won that revolution? I think it was the faction that controls the country to this day, or at least an off shoot of it. So you have a government that had no respect for anything then and there is no evidence to support the idea that they have gained any respect over the years.

The government is, quite simply, not to be trusted. They have no history of being trustworthy. Even the most simple contractual arrangement over their oil sales has been broken.

The sooner they are completely isolated, the better.

your accusations "contractual arrangements broken" are ridiculous when compared with Iran's frozen bank accounts in the U.S. and Europe based on "sanctions". get a little information before you shoot your other foot!

[Scott]

There have been several reports on this thread. The thread is beginning to move in an off-topic manner, although I am inclined to allow that as long as the discussion is civil and informative.

I see that from the last report, being civil is going out the window.

Stick to the topic.

[chuckd]

I have a feeling that what you think is OT is when you really can't justify Iran's actions. By the way, I do know a little about the subject. My knowledge, by the way is personal. Very personal. It has been augmented by a fair amount of reading.

To put things simply, the Iranian government is a loose cannon. They have zero respect for anyone or anything that is the slightest out of variance with their opinion. They have no respect for Embassies, they have no respect for international treaties, they perform international terrorism. The government is about as dishonorable as any. They reign by fear and chaos.

You can continue to support them as much as you want, but remember 'none are as blind as those who will not see.'

They probably have a contractual obligation to deliver oil to the British and French, but even that minor obligation will be ignored.

Sounds as though you were there about the same time I was. I spent five years there, having to leave when Khomaini returned for his power grab. The Shah has been vilified by the press and blogs that are not very accurate but I recall many good things happening under the Shah. There was a developing middle class, the infrastructure was in good shape and the Iranians I had contact with seemed happy and prosperous. The women had relative freedom which is not enjoyed today and other religions could be freely and openly practiced.

Living under an Islamic regime isn't as carefree as some might think.

PS: The Russians and British took over the Iranian oil fields in 1941 to keep the Nazis from getting them. Seems a very prudent move to me.

[exeter]

There is an interesting article in todays telegraph ( www.telegraph.co.uk ) which seems to support my fears for the region, worth a read. As financial experts say "past performance is not a guarantee for the future". Ama dinnerjacket has pledged to wipe Israel off the map, he has missilses that can reach that state, with all the suspicions and rhetoric the world is right to be nervous of the situation. Israel is suspected of having nuclear weapons, it has never admitted it has them, I suspect they have. I would not expect them to use them, first. The worry is the situation getting out of control and others being drawn into it.

I would have thought solar power would be a good option for Iran and I believe there was offer to convert the enriched uruanium elsewhere and return to them which they declined, coupled to that the increase in centrifuges that have been found fuels the speculation that something is going on goes some way to inviting a pre emptive strike.

[Steely Dan]

As far as I can see there are four inter-related issues which will be crucial in determining how things pan out.

1) Sanctions against Iran and retaliatory oil sale embargoes by Iran.

2) The IAEA inspections and the progress they make.

3) Israeli and to an extent U.S faith in the likelihood of sanctions working.

4) Iranian threats to use violence and actual use of violence either overt or covert.

From what I have read I'm of the opinion that the chances of this ending peacefully are rapidly diminishing because in all four areas Iran has closed doors to compromise. First the European sanctions were supposed to be phased in, which would have given time perhaps for negotiations, but by exercising her right to stop selling oil preemptively Iran has started to move the oil price and this will quickly threaten the world economy.

Second the IAEA inspectors were unequivocal in voicing their concern at the complete refusal by Iran to let them see sites where it was suspected bomb making developments were taking place. The door was not even left open for future inspections as far as I'm aware.

Third, Israel and the U.S are no doubt aware of Iran's moves to bypass sanctions via Gold purchases from India and China and Iran cutting sales to European firms reinforces the perception sanctions may not work.

Finally, not only do we have bomb plots in 4 Countries but Iranian rhetoric about attacking Israel and even preemptively attacking if it felt threatened.

When the above four items are viewed together the choice appears stark. Either the west climbs down on sanctions and takes Iran at it's word that it is not developing nuclear weapons and Israel decides not to take Iran at it's word calling for Israels destruction, or else we have only one option left - military action. With all four of the above items Iran has shut the door to compromise making it difficult to conclude they ever had any intentions to do so.

[Wallaby]

Iran can decide for itself who it wants to sell oil to and how it wants paid for that oil. It is no one elses business.

Why can't Iran threaten a pre emptive strike against Israel if it feels threatened. Isn't that exactly what Israel is putting forward?

[flying]

Why can't Iran threaten a pre emptive strike against Israel if it feels threatened. Isn't that exactly what Israel is putting forward?

Are you CRAZY!!!

That is a one way street dont ya know?

[Steely Dan]

Iran can decide for itself who it wants to sell oil to and how it wants paid for that oil. It is no one elses business.

Why can't Iran threaten a pre emptive strike against Israel if it feels threatened. Isn't that exactly what Israel is putting forward?

In both cases yes it can, but this is my whole point - IF Iran had any intention of diffusing the situation it could attempt to so do by addressing the four areas I described in my previous post, instead it is seemingly doing the opposite.

[flying]

Iran can decide for itself who it wants to sell oil to and how it wants paid for that oil. It is no one elses business.

Why can't Iran threaten a pre emptive strike against Israel if it feels threatened. Isn't that exactly what Israel is putting forward?

In both cases yes it can, but this is my whole point - IF Iran had any intention of diffusing the situation it could attempt to so do by addressing the four areas I described in my previous post, instead it is seemingly doing the opposite.

So basically the Iranians should touch their toes & spell RUN?

How about Israel go home take their nuke subs with them instead of pointing them at Iran & tend to that Palestinian Two State Solution?

Truth be told that has a lot to do with this major diversion at this time especially

Interesting perspective I read...written by an Israeli Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery argues that Israeli leaders are using the spectre of an imminent attack on Iran – which he believes will not happen – in order to safeguard the country’s bloated military budget and divert attention from the social protest movement at home.

Israel sabre rattles against Iran to divert attention from home

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[Steely Dan]

Iran can decide for itself who it wants to sell oil to and how it wants paid for that oil. It is no one elses business.

Why can't Iran threaten a pre emptive strike against Israel if it feels threatened. Isn't that exactly what Israel is putting forward?

In both cases yes it can, but this is my whole point - IF Iran had any intention of diffusing the situation it could attempt to so do by addressing the four areas I described in my previous post, instead it is seemingly doing the opposite.

So basically the Iranians should touch their toes & spell RUN?

How about Israel go home take their nuke subs with them instead of pointing them at Iran & tend to that Palestinian Two State Solution?

Truth be told that has a lot to do with this major diversion at this time especially

Palestine is off topic. Israel has not broken any agreements, Iran has. That may not be 'fair', but someone turned down when applying for a firearms license may think it unfair and complain bitterly at the authorities and said authorities have their reasons - In Iran's case there are a wealth of reasons to choose from.

[flying]

Palestine is off topic. Israel has not broken any agreements, Iran has. That may not be 'fair', but someone turned down when applying for a firearms license may think it unfair and complain bitterly at the authorities and said authorities have their reasons - In Iran's case there are a wealth of reasons to choose from.

Palestine is not the topic nor meant to be.....But it is quite possible a legitimate reason for Israel acting out the way they are.

Many well known folks on both sides have said as much.

Yes you are correct Israel has broken no agreements as they have signed none...Which give them absolute Zero rights to demand enforcing a treaty they themselves refuse to sign at all.....................

As to your analogy.............Well I guess Israel needs to be arrested for not even having nor applying for a license? Yet carrying not so concealed weapons of mass destruction.

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[geriatrickid]

I find it odd that so many westerners supporting Iran's desire to create a nuclear power infrastructure also tend to be the most opposed to nuclear energy in their own countries. And yet many of them are supporting the development of nuclear energy in a country that does not have the facilities to either store or process the spent fuel. Not very consistent.

In respect to the sale of Iranian oil, I notice that there is no mention of the environmental implications of Iran's energy related activities. Sadly, Iran along with Russia has an atrocious environmental record. . Personally, I would be thrilled if Iran sold less oil as it means that there would be less spilled all over the country and dropped in the ocean. Again, none of the usual groups that can be counted on to lambaste western energy producers for their environmental records has much to say about the situation in Iran. Not a word on the leaky pipeline to Turkey or the manner in which energy is sent to Syria.

I anticipate that this is now a show before the opening act.

Edited February 26, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Steely Dan]

Palestine is off topic. Israel has not broken any agreements, Iran has. That may not be 'fair', but someone turned down when applying for a firearms license may think it unfair and complain bitterly at the authorities and said authorities have their reasons - In Iran's case there are a wealth of reasons to choose from.

Palestine is not the topic nor meant to be.....But it is quite possible a legitimate reason for Israel acting out the way they are.

Many well known folks on both sides have said as much.

Yes you are correct Israel has broken no agreements as they have signed none...Which give them absolute Zero rights to demand enforcing a treaty they themselves refuse to sign at all.....................

As to your analogy.............Well I guess Israel needs to be arrested for not even having nor applying for a license? Yet carrying not so concealed weapons of mass destruction.

I suggest you complain to the IAEA on behalf of Iran then and while you are at it explain how neither Israel or the U.S has a license, though nobody is even 100% sure Israel has a gun.

Here is the latest IAEA report incidentally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/iran-nuclear-program-iaea_n_1299497.html

According to the IAEA 65 points of concern brought up by them were met with 65 no's.

[flying]

nobody is even 100% sure Israel has a gun.

Ironic isn't it? That you of all folks would try that card

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[flying]

I find it odd that so many westerners supporting Iran's desire to create a nuclear power

Sadly, Iran along with Russia has an atrocious environmental record.

Probably because you have a warped view.....Truth is most like myself only support a sovereign nations right to not be bombed by zealots claiming they are doing it to protect others including themselves from being bombed....Yet they feel quite justified in their zealot view that what they do is somehow righteous....

Environmental? Does BP conjure up any images for you? How about Corexit? Sucking all the oxygen out of the ocean to sink the mess?

Killing every mammal down there?

Anyway drifting a bit off topic eh?

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[Naam]

Palestine is off topic. Israel has not broken any agreements, Iran has. That may not be 'fair', but someone turned down when applying for a firearms license may think it unfair and complain bitterly at the authorities and said authorities have their reasons - In Iran's case there are a wealth of reasons to choose from.

the argument that Israel has not broken any agreement is correct but utterly ridiculous. that Iran has broken an agreement is false as the country is entitled to enrich Uranium for any purpose except nuclear weapons. once there is hard evidence that Iran is developing nukes the "broken agreement" argument is valid. fact: hard evidence is not available.

having said so, it is highly likely that Iran strives to have nukes. since the Shah's demise and Khomeini's take-over the Greatest Nation on Earth™ is threatening the country and its regime partly justified due to utmost stupid actions (U.S. Embassy), financing stupid organisations like Hamas and Hezb'ollah and uttering threats against Israel and its policy vs. the Palestinians. nevertheless, a country is entitled to use all means to defend itself and if it means not recognising a treaty so be it. treaties were broken a zillion times during the last milleniae and will be broken in future.

[ronz28]

Iran should sell its oil to whoever it can or keep it. Libyans are starting to sell their oil again and more gas via fracking is being found every day so who needs it?

Wouldn't hurt to build more windmills, solar power, convert oil burners to natural gas users and develop new alternative energy sources too.