Iran conflict?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

They can get oil from Alberta. We have tons.

The US has enough oil in their reserves to last 75 days without importing anything.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by LouCypher

The risk to the world economy and availability of Oil is pretty big though I think the US is becoming more confident in the resources that it can acquire if need be. Scary thought about the can of worms this will open up if action against Iran is taken, the lack of foresight over the well being of any countrys own citizens in the event of another escalation and potential war in this region shows how Oil has far surpased the value of human life.

I do beileve there is far less oil in Iran than Iraq. That is not to say there isn't a lot though.

I'm not sure an Iranian war or bomb campaigh would be about oil as much as an Iraqi one. Of course they're creating WMD's in the form of a nuclear program and are supposedly helping terrorists, so even if there is only some oil, right there you have the U.S. trinity of reasons to try something.

Moreso it would be about control over the region, especially the waterways which was brought to a head with the capture of the British. Of course, the Iranians may have catured the British to use as a bargaining chip knowing an attack was coming. It seems more and more that a bambing campaign was decided on a little while ago.

[Flash Walken]

I think it's less about 'oil' and more about first or second world control of oil resources.

It would be bad to have second or first world wage demands associated with third world production of oil prices. Can't let the third world develop to quickly or else they might start to jack up their prices. Iran is getting to be too secure in their position as oil baron. Time to knock 'em down a peg and show 'em what real capitalism is all about.

[Flames09]

This is getting ridiculous can someone remind me why the Americans bombed Iraq? and now they want to go to full on war with Iran, are the Americans asking for terrorists how stupid can they get there has to be a better way too deal with this. Why can't women run the countries with guys it's always who's "bigger"..

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Azure

CaptainCrunch, why can't the Brits just do a snatch and grab?

Or will the security be high strung, massive reinforcements etc, etc?

They don't even know where they are. Intelligence is not THAT good. And the S.A.S. isn't exactly James Bond + Delta Force mixed into one. Any covert operation will result in a great deal of loss of life and bring them to the brink of warfare anyway.

The U.S./U.K. can't find the location of kidnapped hostages in Iraq, a country they freely patrol and have strong surveliiance on. How are they supposed to know where Iran is keeping the soldiers?

[Hakan]

Iran's interests are being ignored in this thread which makes for an interesting analysis.

Why did Iran significantly increase the conflict with their abduction of British sailors? Are they baiting someone into a fight? If not, what are their motives?

The key to understanding this situation rests with Iran's motives not the American's.

[Envitro]

It's kind of funny. I was reading a leading world situation market analysis report last night (from yesterday). This guys is the leader in the field, and he basically said that Iran has no leverage in this situation because they have no refining capacity in their country, and are a net importer of 95% of their gasoline. So one of these days somebody shuts the valve off and bye-bye. No more fuel for Iran.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Iran's interests are being ignored in this thread which makes for an interesting analysis.

Why did Iran significantly increase the conflict with their abduction of British sailors? Are they baiting someone into a fight? If not, what are their motives?

The key to understanding this situation rests with Iran's motives not the American's.

Ah-'Jad is equally as guilty of trying to use fear to control his country as anybody in the West is.

He's trying to create a situation that will cause the West to look like the evil guy, methinks.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Iran's interests are being ignored in this thread which makes for an interesting analysis.

Why did Iran significantly increase the conflict with their abduction of British sailors? Are they baiting someone into a fight? If not, what are their motives?

The key to understanding this situation rests with Iran's motives not the American's.

Iran's leaders need a crisis to divert attention of their citizens from their collapsing economy . . . . . astonishingly effective diplomatic and economic sanctions, combined with the incompetence of the Iranian President, are crippling the country . . . . . and that highlights the vulnerability and weakness of a country with essentially only one product to sell.

A crisis adds a risk premium to the price of oil as well, and that helps Iran. The risk premium had largely disappeared in the last six months.

Iran has little refining capacity though and spends billions importing gasoline.

A good article in the Globe & Mail recently:

This is a good summary of Mr. Ahmadinejad's economic policies. In the election, he won popular support with his pledge to “put the oil money on the tables of the people,” to redistribute wealth. This resonated with a working class that had become increasingly poor as oil prices rose, and sociologists say this, rather than his talk of a “new Islamic revolution,” was the main reason for his success. (Political polls are banned, so sociological field work is Iran's only source of public-opinion research.) In other words, Iranians voted with their pocketbooks.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has responded in an especially blunt fashion: He has increased government spending dramatically, by 27 per cent in last year's budget. He spent $1.5-billion on grants to young married couples, and forced banks to make low-interest loans (effectively grants, since repayment is not required) to low-income families and small businesses; he ordered workers' salaries increased by 40 per cent; he regulated the price of housing and set state-determined prices for numerous goods.

But the main effect of his economic policies, which have maintained the heavily state-owned economy that produces hardly any revenues beyond oil incomes, has been galloping inflation and rampant unemployment.

And in the final insult, Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has run into severe gasoline shortages. It has had to import billions of dollars' worth of gasoline, because it has neither enough refineries to serve its people nor the investment to exploit its full reserves. More than 6 per cent of the oil it drills is lost to leakage, and there is no apparent interest in fixing the leaks because the state monopoly has little incentive to do anything.

The society, one former Finance Ministry official tells me, is “dying of petroleum poisoning.”

This is no secret to anyone living in Tehran, the most car-clogged city in the world. The government has fixed the gas-pump price at 8 cents a litre, far below the cost to produce it (Mr. Ahmadinejad introduced a bill this month to raise the price — in five years, when he will be out of office). Tehran, with 7 million people, has three million cars on the road, and 1,500 new vehicles registered every day.

In Narmak, his old neighbours, who should be his most loyal supporters, are turning against Mr. Ahmadinejad.

“This past year and a half has been very difficult for us,” says Hamid, 20, who with his father runs Istanbul Greengrocers, where the President used to shop. “Prices for all the fruit and vegetables have doubled. It's the inflation that's done it. And people can't afford to buy more than the absolute minimum of produce, because 100 per cent of their salary is taken up with rent, which has doubled.

“People around here still like Ahmadinejad personally; he's one of us. But we can't live this way. He should have a different job.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...eRequested=all

Cowperson

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Iran's interests are being ignored in this thread which makes for an interesting analysis.

Why did Iran significantly increase the conflict with their abduction of British sailors? Are they baiting someone into a fight? If not, what are their motives?

The key to understanding this situation rests with Iran's motives not the American's.

I don't think it's baiting someone into a fight. Firstly, they targeted Brits, when targeting Americans would have been far more efficient. They know that because of the 'measured response' outcry from the west during the recent Lebanon invasion, it's unlikely that anyone will invade Iran over these hostages. And unlike the west, you don't need bait someone into attacking you to claim the moral high-ground.

I think the most likely is that this is simply the IRG getting revenge for the IRG forces that were captured in Iraq; they're known for being very vendictive. If that's the case, this probably was a military decision made without the knowledge of high levels of government, though the government is now taking advantage of the situation for their own political/diplomatic agenda. To me, it's suspicious that they were captured by IRG boats. You'd expect the standard Iranian navy would be responsible for border patrol-type duties, but the presence of the IRG suggests that this was more calculated.

If this was an order that came from the top, the intent was probably to undermine resolve and support for the mission in Britain. As much as this will momentarily unify Britain's resolve in the region, that resolve could deflate very quickly once the situation is diffused. And in addition to attempting to get the Brits to leave, Khamenei also has a vested interest in portraying the Brits as being just as reckless and arrogant as the Americans.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

CaptainCrunch, why can't the Brits just do a snatch and grab?

Or will the security be high strung, massive reinforcements etc, etc?

Great question, and it was well answered below.

The key hinges on location, they don't know where they are, and its likely that they are being held in the Revolutionary Guard head quarters which is right in downtown. Because of this crisis I'm pretty sure that coastal security has been increased as is the readiness of thier air defenses and airforce.

The only way into that country is either up the coast, or through the air and doing a drop, then traveling on foot through downtown Iran, which is pretty much an armed camp with a police officer on every corner with an AK-74.

Even if they knew where the prisoners were, its unlikely that they would risk a grab.

Special Forces do impressive work against either an unprepared or surprised enemy, but small unit lightly armed formations will usually fail and die in a vipers pit like Iran.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think the most likely is that this is simply the IRG getting revenge for the IRG forces that were captured in Iraq; they're known for being very vendictive. If that's the case, this probably was a military decision made without the knowledge of high levels of government, though the government is now taking advantage of the situation for their own political/diplomatic agenda. To me, it's suspicious that they were captured by IRG boats. You'd expect the standard Iranian navy would be responsible for border patrol-type duties, but the presence of the IRG suggests that this was more calculated.

Bingo, the Revolutionary guards are not border guards or Navy, they're a specialized formation with its creation based around the Nazi SS, they're an offensive tool, not a home defense unit.

They're involvement in this goes a long ways in my mind towards thinking that Iran snatched these guys out of Iraqi waters for political gain.

The Revolutionary guard also only answers to the senior members of the Iranian Government, they're not part of thier military and have thier own seperate chain of command, they also have a senior seat on the Revolutionary Council. If you want to maintain power in Iran, you have to be friends with the Guard. Very similar to the path to power in the old Soviet Union going through the KGB after the massive army purges of the 60's.

[RW99]

I'm scratching my head at this UK sailor thing. All these "letters" she's sending out just doesn't seem right.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RW99

I'm scratching my head at this UK sailor thing. All these "letters" she's sending out just doesn't seem right.

The one argument that I had against woman in combat roles is that they can be easier to coerce. It can either be done with implied threats of sexual abuse, or the implied threat of never leaving the country. This isn't a common things with all captured woman, but it certainly makes her questioners job a lot easier.

The Iranian's have never really valued woman's rights, and prisoners rights, so when you combine the two, they have a pretty big tool kit to use to get a confession.

[TheDragon]

Looks like the captive British sailors have been released, as per BBC:

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning and then fly home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the news would come as "a profound relief" to the crew and their families.
Iranian media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Still, it looked and still looks too much like political posturing. This whole thing just screams staged to me, since Ah-Jad is particularily having trouble convincing his people he's capable of the job. Great way to boost your image in the public eye, I suppose.

Either that, or the UK struck up some kind of under the table deal with them.

I dunno. At the end of the day, the Brits have been released. That's good news.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Looks like the captive British sailors have been released, as per BBC:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Still, it looked and still looks too much like political posturing. This whole thing just screams staged to me, since Ah-Jad is particularily having trouble convincing his people he's capable of the job. Great way to boost your image in the public eye, I suppose.

Either that, or the UK struck up some kind of under the table deal with them.

I dunno. At the end of the day, the Brits have been released. That's good news.

Ah-Jad just successfully played chicken with the West and won. No serious action was taken in retaliation for what essentially was an act of war by the Iranian government.

That, or the US and UK were a lot more hardlined in their negotiations than they appeared in the media. Something along the lines of what Cap'n Crunch said a few days... ie. we have a nuclear submarine just sitting off your coast. The nuclear negotiating chip is still strongly in the West's hands at this stage, I'm certain it was at least brought up once or twice when talking to little Ah-Jad.

[Azure]

Thats great news!

I'm happy that this was resolved without any bloodshed...yet.

[Slava]

I think that this is good news. I don't think that the world is ready for a war that stretches from Iraq right through Afghanistan, and probably takes 15 years....