International community to resume nuclear talks with Iran

[myfriendu]

_{Enough of the opinion pieces. There are plenty of editorials that disagree with those conclusions, but no point in linking to opinions.}

and plenty of people who disagree with your posts but you can carry on posting called free speech,

[Morch]

Wouldn't say "misleading".

I'm not so sure that the change (or threat to change) of trading currency, by itself, is a main feature.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this particular step (maybe not a smart one) appears after the conflict is on the move.

The USA interest is to have as much control of oil (by that I mean all aspects - production, trade, whatever), as it can and exclude other contenders from having the same. You don't get to be an empire (or superpower, as they are called nowadays) by playing nice. Same goes for world trade in general, military capabilities of nations.

Disclaimer: I don't see this as necessarily "evil" or "bad" (doubt that such terms can be attributed to stuff like that, anyway). The USA is taking care of its interests, it is currently top dog, and as such things go, they aren't worse than the previous ones or than the other options around, probably somewhat better.

Actually 2 of the 3 coincidences? I mentioned were announced before a conflict.

Actually you could say 3 for 3 but Libya was slightly under pressure when he made the comment about Europe would no longer

get their oil....So maybe 3 for 3 as he was not being bombed & targeted.

Remember initially all it was supposed to be was a No Fly Zone enforcement.

It quickly escalated into much more

But Iran announced a couple years back.

Iraq also announced well before Saddam became a target

But as you say the US is taking care of *their* interest.

But at what point is it illegal for a customer to demand service by threatening the supplier in any way?

If any other country pulled such I know who would be the 1st to complain.

I probably should have phrased it better :-(.

What I meant by "conflict on the move" wasn't the start of actual military action, but just that the situation between the USA and relevant country was already past acceptable diplomatic animosity.

Not arguing that maintaining the USA Dollar as the currency of choice is one of the fundamental concerns of USA policy. Just saying that it this move always appears within a context of an existing conflict, not as sparking it. Iran-USA relations went sour well before the announcement was made, same goes for Iraq.

Not a real expert on global economy, so wonder what the actual effects of such a move will be:

Alright, some buyers pay in Euro, some in Yen - would Iran take Bahts?

Iran says buyers can pay in gold - any takers on that?

And ok, let us assume all of Iran's oil goes for other currencies - what actual effect would that have on the USA? (my guess is that the effect itself won't be devastating or anything, more that the USA is not interested in allowing a precedent).

You are saying "their" interests, fair enough - how is this going to effect us, then? Do "our" interests lie elsewhere?

[flying]

I probably should have phrased it better :-(.

What I meant by "conflict on the move" wasn't the start of actual military action, but just that the situation between the USA and relevant country was already past acceptable diplomatic animosity.

Not arguing that maintaining the USA Dollar as the currency of choice is one of the fundamental concerns of USA policy. Just saying that it this move always appears within a context of an existing conflict, not as sparking it. Iran-USA relations went sour well before the announcement was made, same goes for Iraq.

Not a real expert on global economy, so wonder what the actual effects of such a move will be:

Alright, some buyers pay in Euro, some in Yen - would Iran take Bahts?

Iran says buyers can pay in gold - any takers on that?

And ok, let us assume all of Iran's oil goes for other currencies - what actual effect would that have on the USA? (my guess is that the effect itself won't be devastating or anything, more that the USA is not interested in allowing a precedent).

You are saying "their" interests, fair enough - how is this going to effect us, then? Do "our" interests lie elsewhere?

Take away consumerism & what does America have?

Take away the enforced policy of pricing oil in dollars & does the US lose seigniorage does the paper

become more so just paper? Sure it does

It is the fact that they hold this power & the spot as world reserve currency that is basically the only curtain left

between complete collapse/default. No other country can print TRILLIONS of that which they do not have.

When i said *their* interest I meant ours but was quoting your use of their interest to describe America protecting their interest.

There are many articles that explain it better than I can

Oil, Dollars, Euros And Dead Iraqi's

A shift by OPEC to the euro would rapidly confront the US with an economic “nightmare scenario.” Major oil importers would need to transfer some of their funds from US dollars reserves—stocks, bonds and other assets—into euro reserves. This would see a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, possibly setting in motion a further withdrawal of funds as investors became nervous over the value of their dollar assets. Suddenly the burgeoning US debt, which at present plays little or no role in day-to-day financial calculations, would become a factor of considerable importance.

In other words, a switch in the financial basis of the oil export market, or a significant part of it, would have major consequences for the global financial position of the US, quite irrespective of whether oil was freely available or the price charged for it. However, if the US were in control of Iraqi supplies, either directly or through a puppet, it would be in a much better position to block any currency shift by the OPEC countries

Here is another precursor from 2009

Iran Ends Oil Transactions In U.S. Dollars

.

Edited March 21, 2012 by flying

[Scott]

A quote from an unapproved source has been removed as well as replies and off-topic posts.

[up-country_sinclair]

Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA recently said that the only way this issue will be resolved is if the US and Iran sit down to negotiations.

He also offered up his opinion on an oft disuccsed alternative to negotiations:

Israel would be “totally crazy” to launch military strikes against Iran as this would make the Islamic Republic determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal, Mohamed ElBaradei, the former chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, told DPA.

Asked during an interview in Berlin if an Israeli strike was imminent, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said: “I don’t think so. I think anybody who is going to attack Iran, frankly, will be totally crazy.”

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=495661&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

[Ulysses G.]

Israel would be “totally crazy” to launch military strikes against Iran as this would make the Islamic Republic determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal

- Mohammed ElBaradei

They are already determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal, so the Neville Chamberlain approach will not work.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Latest "Claim" is attack put on hold.....election year in the US?

or just another in a long line (a decade )of hollow threats.

I mean they have been threatened with bombing due to acquiring

nukes since early 2000

Or another attempt to extract $$$$ for supposed defense they cannot

afford.......Not that we can either

Israel's plan to attack Iran put on hold until next year at the earliest

http://www.prisonplanet.com/report-iran-attack-postponed-until-spring-2013.html

Edited March 29, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

Latest "Claim" is attack put on hold.....election year in the US?

...

Good news for Obama's already very high reelection chances.

Who knows, by 2013 maybe the Iranian people will rise up and kick their bums out.

Also good to hear that Israel's "Iron Dome" program is working so well.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Latest "Claim" is attack put on hold.....election year in the US?

...

Good news for Obama's already very high reelection chances.

Who knows, by 2013 maybe the Iranian people will rise up and kick their bums out.

Also good to hear that Israel's "Iron Dome" program is working so well.

I agree about Iron Dome, but that's it. I thought you may be interested in the following news, which was deliberately leaked by the U.S administration according to the Israeli press and John Bolton in a recent interview he gave.

http://www.foreignpo..._staging_ground

U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?

Edited March 30, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Morch]

I agree about Iron Dome, but that's it. I thought you may be interested in the following news, which was deliberately leaked by the U.S administration according to the Israeli press and John Bolton in a recent interview he gave.

http://www.foreignpo..._staging_ground

U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?

There seems to be "leaking campaign" recently, probably by those opposed to the scenario of an Israeli attack on Iran. A Congressional Research Service report found its way to the press as well, not an everyday occurrence. Almost all of it appeared on the news, but sums things up neatly, and interesting to see what is presented to elected representatives (I'm sure that some comities on the congress and senate get more thorough reports, which remain classified) - http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rcI7FQdkMHr8 (a long PDF format document).

[folium]

Latest "Claim" is attack put on hold.....election year in the US?

...

Good news for Obama's already very high reelection chances.

Who knows, by 2013 maybe the Iranian people will rise up and kick their bums out.

Also good to hear that Israel's "Iron Dome" program is working so well.

I agree about Iron Dome, but that's it. I thought you may be interested in the following news, which was deliberately leaked by the U.S administration according to the Israeli press and John Bolton in a recent interview he gave.

http://www.foreignpo..._staging_ground

U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?

Excellent article from FP which just serves to underline the fact that as so often geopolitics trumps religion.

On a different note, is there are accessible data/information on the actual feasibilty of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel? How would such a device be delivered, where, and how would collateral damage/fallout re the neighbours be avoided? How robust are the counter-measures? Does Israel have a publicly stated policy re pre-emptive first strike or second strike with its nuclear weapons?

Hopefully, none of this will ever be relevant.

[Morch]

On a different note, is there are accessible data/information on the actual feasibilty of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel? How would such a device be delivered, where, and how would collateral damage/fallout re the neighbours be avoided? How robust are the counter-measures? Does Israel have a publicly stated policy re pre-emptive first strike or second strike with its nuclear weapons?

The Congressional Research Service report I linked to above includes sections dealing with that, plus sources of presented information.