Iran halts oil exports to British, French firms

[Naam]

It is completely off topice but....other countries can have an attrocious environmental record until they get what they want then try and reign it in. But Iran can't? Why shouldn't they be given the same leeway as other countries that have already done it.

Same horse with a different rider, US won't sign the Kyoto Protocol but you think Iran should consider the environment.

So many double standards from the usual suspects.

there's a valid reason why the US does not sign the Cayote Protocol. animal rights associations stepped in to protect the Cayotes.

[Naam]

nobody is even 100% sure Israel has a gun.

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

please believe me that my dogs are vegetarians. they prefer plain sticky rice over a freshly grilled German Bratwurst. nobody is even 100% sure that they have teeth

[nong38]

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.

and the Iranian Embassy seige in London was not an attack on the UK? I am sure you have more interesting reading for us, personally I thought the actions of the SAS said thousands of words. Edited February 26, 2012 by nong38

[flying]

and the Iranian Embassy seige in London was not an attack the UK, I am sure you have more interesting reading for us, personally I thought the actions of the SAS said thousands of words.

No sorry nong I have no knowledge nor interest in that event......Perhaps you can fill us in if it is somehow tied to this topic?

That attack you speak of was the Iranian Government doing the attacking you say?

Because if not it does not tie in at all does it?

I mean seeing as the original detour from topic via Credo was an attempt to say the Iranian government had in fact attacked another country..........yet the fact remains they have not..............

Edited February 26, 2012 by flying

[nong38]

and the Iranian Embassy seige in London was not an attack the UK, I am sure you have more interesting reading for us, personally I thought the actions of the SAS said thousands of words.

No sorry nong I have no knowledge nor interest in that event......Perhaps you can fill us in if it is somehow tied to this topic?

That attack you speak of was the Iranian Government doing the attacking you say?

Because if not it does not tie in at all does it?

I mean seeing as the original detour from topic via Credo was an attempt to say the Iranian government had in fact attacked another country..........yet the fact remains they have not..............

Verbally they have attacked Israel I am sure you would agree and you will no doubt remember the Iraq/Iran War whilst Iraq may have started it and you may say that Iran was defending itself, they did attack Iraq.

[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.

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.

At least you seem to be prepared to admit Iran has to a large extent brought undesired attention upon itself. As for 'hard evidence' being available or not as to their nuclear weapons program I can only but point you at the last IAEA report.

P.S I agree with GK and have for a while that all of this is just theatre, what will happen is already decided.

[kerryk]

and the Iranian Embassy seige in London was not an attack the UK, I am sure you have more interesting reading for us, personally I thought the actions of the SAS said thousands of words.

No sorry nong I have no knowledge nor interest in that event......Perhaps you can fill us in if it is somehow tied to this topic?

That attack you speak of was the Iranian Government doing the attacking you say?

Because if not it does not tie in at all does it?

I mean seeing as the original detour from topic via Credo was an attempt to say the Iranian government had in fact attacked another country..........yet the fact remains they have not..............

Tehran has been deeply implicated in directing and conducting both assassinations and larger mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America.

During the wave of nearly 200 assassinations of dissident exiles, Iranian "diplomats" were expelled from several countries including Germany, Norway and Turkey.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NB24Ae01.html

[bigbamboo]

NY Times has this to say;

Iran is deeply dependent for foreign currency on oil sales, which supply more than 50 per cent of the national budget and account for 80 per cent of exports. Iran produces about 3.5 million barrels a day and exports about 2.5 million, 70 per cent of that to Asia. The 27 nations of the EU are a big customer as a whole, representing about 18 per cent of Iran’s exports. But Britain and Germany only get about 1 per cent of their oil from Iran and France only about 3 per cent.

NYT also mentions Iran was trying to secure 3-5 year supply contracts with some EU countries. I expect that would be Germany. Interesting enough, Germany just signed a base and supply agreement with Canada which will be a return to Europe for Canada after its closing of its base in Lahr years ago. This suggests to me one thing: Some countries are getting ready for conflict.

A London-based newspaper claims Turkey and China are helping Iran to evade UN sanctions by providing Tehran with banking facilities to purchase necessary commodities through indirect means.

According to an article published by The Telegraph on Tuesday, Iran's central bank is using a number of financial institutions in China and Turkey to fund the purchase of vital goods, thus to blunt the impact of the Western sanctions on the country’s financial sector.

No surprises there. The Chinese will do almost anything for money now and the Turks are miffed that the Europeans won't let a nation of 80 million muslims which is almost entirely in Asia join the European Union.

[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.

At least you seem to be prepared to admit Iran has to a large extent brought undesired attention upon itself. As for 'hard evidence' being available or not as to their nuclear weapons program I can only but point you at the last IAEA report.

P.S I agree with GK and have for a while that all of this is just theatre, what will happen is already decided.

of course i admit that and i admit that i think Iran is trying hard to acquire nuclear weapons by whatever means. the "Shah-an-Shah". a puppet of the, west signed the non proliferation agreement in 1968 (ratified in 1970).

the rational question is why should the Mullahs who came into power nearly a decade later being under fire from different sides honour that agreement?

puppet who was in charge of Iran signed the NPT

[chuckd]

It is completely off topice but....other countries can have an attrocious environmental record until they get what they want then try and reign it in. But Iran can't? Why shouldn't they be given the same leeway as other countries that have already done it.

Same horse with a different rider, US won't sign the Kyoto Protocol but you think Iran should consider the environment.

So many double standards from the usual suspects.

there's a valid reason why the US does not sign the Cayote Protocol. animal rights associations stepped in to protect the Cayotes.

The main reason the US has not signed the Kyoto Protocol is because the US Senate in the Clinton and all subsequent administrations has refused to accept the treaty. The Senate must ratify any treaty before the President is authorized to sign it.

It has little to do with animal rights.

and you have little to do with humour Chuck

Perhaps I merely understand the difference between humor and sarcasm.

[Scott]

Some quite off-topic posts have been removed. This thread is certainly not about the Kyoto protocol.

[nong38]

Any country has the right to buy and sell from or to whover it chooses. Do sanctions work, they have never been wholely successful, the current situation is being undermined by the Russians and the Turks ( who like to join the EU and I wonder why they are not being allowed to?).

On Russia Today the US intelligence services are quoted as saying "they do not believe Iran is building a bomb". Israel on the other hand is not so sure and its in their back yard. Iran is throwing enough doubt about to invite a strike, they can stop this at a stroke by giving the UN inspectors access to sites of concern. I hope they change their position, this is a very volatile situation brewing. Wars win nothing much apart from destruction you still have to talk about things after the fighting so lets not get to the fighting.

I dont know what is worse a pre emptive strike or a nuclear armed Iran, either way the oil price goes up and we all feel the heat.

Unless a re emptive strike can be assured to " do the job" it makes things worse.

I am not a war monger, I wish every body could just live in peace, the Iranians could de fuse the situation at a stroke but ehy dont seem as if they want to, in the meantime others prepare for all eventualities. This could end up to be the modern day Cuban Missile crisis but in the gulf.

[Jingthing]

http://disasteremerg...nian-oil-to-eu/

Here is my speculation. Israel have lost patience with U.S procrastination over Iran and are going to take matters into their own hands. Obama is scheduled to meet Netanyahu on March 5th, which is well flagged. There are far too many so called false flags being called at present, but I suspect military action may take place before this date and the announcement of the meeting may be intended to fool Iran and perhaps stop them from cutting off oil to more E.U Countries in the short term, until they secure alternative supplies.

Well, you've got your prediction in. I doubt it. Here's mine: Obama pressures Netanyahu to delay attacking Iran until after Obama is reelected. Then Obama promises that the U.S. will invade WITH Israel.

[koheesti]

At least you seem to be prepared to admit Iran has to a large extent brought undesired attention upon itself. As for 'hard evidence' being available or not as to their nuclear weapons program I can only but point you at the last IAEA report.

P.S I agree with GK and have for a while that all of this is just theatre, what will happen is already decided.

of course i admit that and i admit that i think Iran is trying hard to acquire nuclear weapons by whatever means. the "Shah-an-Shah". a puppet of the, west signed the non proliferation agreement in 1968 (ratified in 1970).

Since Iran was a "puppet of the west" at that time the reason for not going nuke had more to do with being on the southern border of the Soviet Union than bowing down to Western interests. Don't forget part of the deal to get the missiles out of Cuba less than a decade earlier was for the USA to pull them out of Turkey. That doesn't mean just move them next door to Iran or let them develop their own then point them north.

Edited February 26, 2012 by koheesti

[geriatrickid]

What I still have yet to see is an explanation as to why there is no investment in a distribution system for this supposed new nuclear generated power. You can't just plug it into the existing power grid because that grid is in bad shape. It takes years to build the transmission system, and yet there is nothng going on.There is no investment in spent fuel storage facilities. I would be more understanding of the Iranian position that its nuclear energy was intended for peaceful purposes if there was some sort of activity going on in respect to the infrastructure associated with nuclear power and if its nuclear sector was subject to the same public oversight as it is in Germany or the USA etc. That oversight doesn't require any nation to give up trade secrets or sovereignty and is needed to counter the perception that the nuclear energy is intended for hostile purposes. The perception arises because the Iranian activity to date supports the notion of non peaceful use.

I note the criticism of BP. The issue of responsibility has been discussed on another thread. However as the issue was raised, I note that within the context of the Iranian oil situation, it highlights a fundamental difference between the Iranian and "western" oil industries. BP was held responsible and it responded accordingly. When there is an oil spill in Iran, what do you think happens? This fundamental approach to transparency and responsibility is another reason why I cannot accept the Iranian arguments: There is no history of transparency or ethical behaviour when it comes to the iranian energy sector. It's easy to beat up on western energy companies like Shell, BP, Exxon etc, but at the very least there is oversight both from the public and the various regulatory bodies. How can one have faith or confidence in the Iranian energy sector when there is no transparency? It is rather hypocritical that the very same people that denounce western nuclear energy are very quiet on the issue of Iranian nuclear power.

If one really cares about the fate of the Iranians, one would be raising the subject of nuclear energy. Even if the intent is peaceful, who is looking out for the population that will have to live with the nuclear waste and that will have no idea of the risks inherent with the industry. There have been no public hearings, no safety drills, no planning in the event of an emergency. Nothing. The people defending the Iranian position haven't given any thought as to the need for public accountability even though it is the general public's health and safety that is at risk if something goes wrong.

edit for spelling - sorry I'm tired.

Edited February 26, 2012 by geriatrickid

[flying]

it highlights a fundamental difference between the Iranian and "western" oil industries. BP was held responsible and it responded accordingly.

Surely you jest?

[endure]

it highlights a fundamental difference between the Iranian and "western" oil industries. BP was held responsible and it responded accordingly.

Surely you jest?

Ironically it was BP (as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) that provoked the overthrow of Mossadegh.

[Richard W]

These urgent claims have been flying for over 10 years now....... Each time it is said...they are close...they are close...

As the Manhattan Project took less than four years, it's not so difficult to be 'close' without making any efforts.

[exeter]

There are those who say its already to late and that an attack on Iran's facilities would only delay the inevitable if a bomb is the end game. I have heard many times that the regime wants to enrich for medical reasons but then declines offers from other parties to help with this.

As time goes by it seems that the easisest and cheapest way to deal with nuclear waste might be to export it like the 3 visitors to Bangkok tried to do earlier this month with conventional devices that failed to go off, does not bear thinking about but the regime seems posssible of anything and then denying any invovlement.

We live in interesting times.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed. The thread is not about domestic US policy. It's not about drilling in the Amazon.

Please stick to the topic.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Continued discussion of the US election will earn posters a suspension.

This is not too difficult.....Iran.....Sanctions.....Oil....and those things directly related to it.

[coma]

I think it is good to see Iran take the initiative away from the west with their sanctions by cutting them off at a time of thier own choosing. Not the outsiders choosing. Quite funny actually. Bet the US and their ' brotherhood' didn't see this coming. Now they must be kringing at the prospect of Iran selling their oil to India, Russia and China who are all to happy to take the extra oil.

I note the spike in the price of oil and the bleaking of the US public about the price they need to pay for a gallon of gas at the moment. Hahaha. It is your own governments policy on placing sanctions on Iran that is the root cause of said price spike. Very clever indeed.

[Credo]

Iran cutting off oil to Europe will have little affect on the price of gas in the US. The price of oil is global. The sanctions are simply moving the buyers and sellers around. If China and India buy Iranian oil, they will be buying less from somewhere else. I doubt that much oil has actually been taken off the market.

Markets and prices are very sensitive to uncertainty and these are uncertain times. If the Iranians block traffic in the Strait of Hormowitz (sp), that will be a big problem on physical supplies of oil.

I believe that Saudi Arabia has agreed to make up any reduction in oil from Iranian sanctions.

[Steely Dan]

I think it is good to see Iran take the initiative away from the west with their sanctions by cutting them off at a time of thier own choosing. Not the outsiders choosing. Quite funny actually. Bet the US and their ' brotherhood' didn't see this coming. Now they must be kringing at the prospect of Iran selling their oil to India, Russia and China who are all to happy to take the extra oil.

I note the spike in the price of oil and the bleaking of the US public about the price they need to pay for a gallon of gas at the moment. Hahaha. It is your own governments policy on placing sanctions on Iran that is the root cause of said price spike. Very clever indeed.

I share your sense of schadenfreude but most probably for completely different reasons.