Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[innonimatu]

Any export of natural gas will create a problem where their oil wells need it for reinjection and it has not been available for maintainence issues in the past.
(...)
So it remains open to question whether Iran will continue gas exports should their oil exports decline due to lack of reinjection.

This is why, like the Soviet Union, we don't have to do anything.

Funny that you should mention the Soviet Union. It, like Iran, was starting to leverage on energy resources to influence Europe, before it collapsed. Russia is now continuing that policy very successfully, and nobody doubts its ability to keep doing so for many years. Russia will soon supply almost all the natural gas consumed in Western Europe.

Iran's reserves are about half those of Russia. And just across the Persian Gulf (actually, right in the Persian Gulf) lies Qatar, with the same estimated reserves. Iran can easily meet current contracts and more, with the proper investments. And within less than a decade many smaller reserves should run out, and Iran will have no lack of interested investors.

The argument that Iran will somehow keep mismanaging things and consume all its oil and gas production defies reason– Iran can and will fix its infrastructure and policies, when the return from taking those steps becomes worthwhile. Revenue from exports is worthwhile, and Russia managed to make its energy industry very lucrative - there’s no reason Iran cannot do so, given time. It’s not currently doing so for two reasons: big gas deals are effectively frozen, pending resolution of this security crisis, and foreign investment is necessary but will also not happen until Iran presents a more predictable scenario.
The US doesn’t want Iran to collapse internally and later re-emerge, like the USSR/Russia, or to carry out reforms, like China. It wants a weak, divided, controllable Iran. And only war will do that, like it was done to Iraq in 1991-92. The need to tie things up in Iraq will set the time for it, early this year seems likely.

The problem for the US is, Iran may actually resist trough a war, and come out in a stronger position. To what degree can a war be escalated? Disrupting central government enough to cause it to collapse, killing political elites in the process, destroying industries… will the US dare go that far? It makes the talk of using nuclear weapons easier to understand. But how to justify escalating to this level (mass slaughter of civilians)? By drawing Iran into Iraq with limited provocations, and spinning a later attack on Iran as a defensive war? This would justify why the US is turning a blind eye on iranian interference in Iraq, or even helping it – to encourage Iran to invade after a limited attack, thus justifying a much larger one later?
One thing is certain, moral qualms will not limit escalation. They didn’t prevent the destruction of Iraq form 1991 onwards.

 

[Kozmos]

Hey now easy there, maybe we criticized him enough. President Bush needs a break! He's like a Black and Decker cordless Dirt Devil vacuum. If you don't recharge his batteries he can't suck.

 

[Whomp]

Funny that you should mention the Soviet Union. It, like Iran, was starting to leverage on energy resources to influence Europe, before it collapsed. Russia is now continuing that policy very successfully, and nobody doubts its ability to keep doing so for many years. Russia will soon supply almost all the natural gas consumed in Western Europe.

Look what it took to get their energy industry back on track. Iran will have to scrap their system of subsidizing the citizens for this to happen. Gasoline and natural gas consumption is increasing more than anywhere in the world.

Iran's reserves are about half those of Russia. And just across the Persian Gulf (actually, right in the Persian Gulf) lies Qatar, with the same estimated reserves. Iran can easily meet current contracts and more, with the proper investments. And within less than a decade many smaller reserves should run out, and Iran will have no lack of interested investors.

The problem lies in their constitution which doesn't allow foreign investment. They have an extremely complex process called buybacks that most countries and firms are not fond of. Look at Statoil's writeoff last year and how the Japanese have been working on a deal that's been going on seven years.

The argument that Iran will somehow keep mismanaging things and consume all its oil and gas production defies reason– Iran can and will fix its infrastructure and policies, when the return from taking those steps becomes worthwhile. Revenue from exports is worthwhile, and Russia managed to make its energy industry very lucrative - there’s no reason Iran cannot do so, given time. It’s not currently doing so for two reasons: big gas deals are effectively frozen, pending resolution of this security crisis, and foreign investment is necessary but will also not happen until Iran presents a more predictable scenario.

Demand growth is outpacing output.
Why couldn't they produce their quota in 2006? They couldn't ask for a better environment to deliver in.
Why haven't they fixed the wells destroyed on the Persian Gulf? Because they don't have the investors or technology to do it. It's much easier to drill on land.
Why do they import gasoline? Because refineries are expensive to fix and don't contribute to the economy.

The US doesn’t want Iran to collapse internally and later re-emerge, like the USSR/Russia, or to carry out reforms, like China.

Huh? Why? This logic makes no sense to me.
China is singlehandedly keeping inflation rates low in the US.

It wants a weak, divided, controllable Iran. And only war will do that, like it was done to Iraq in 1991-92. The need to tie things up in Iraq will set the time for it, early this year seems likely.

Doubtful. I'm as hawkish as the next guy and the Iranian people may be more like us than any of the Middle Easterners. They want stuff.

The problem for the US is, Iran may actually resist trough a war, and come out in a stronger position. To what degree can a war be escalated? Disrupting central government enough to cause it to collapse, killing political elites in the process, destroying industries… will the US dare go that far? It makes the talk of using nuclear weapons easier to understand. But how to justify escalating to this level (mass slaughter of civilians)? By drawing Iran into Iraq with limited provocations, and spinning a later attack on Iran as a defensive war? This would justify why the US is turning a blind eye on iranian interference in Iraq, or even helping it – to encourage Iran to invade after a limited attack, thus justifying a much larger one later?
One thing is certain, moral qualms will not limit escalation. They didn’t prevent the destruction of Iraq form 1991 onwards.

It's the last thing we want and totally unnecessary. They've already proved they could blame the Iraqis for their woes during that war and rally the populous. There's no reason to give the Iranian government any excuses for their internal failings so why attack? It makes no sense.

 

[newfangle]

If anyone thinks that the US will attack Iran within, say, a decade, they are beyond stupid. You may quote me on that, and throw it back at me if I'm wrong.

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way, I thought you guys might not like checking out this totally sweet pro-war-with-Iran tshirt:

http://www.casualconservative.com/index.html

Here's the description of the shirt by the site's authors:

At this point, there are few courses of action that could
save Iran. Maybe Ahmadinejad will give up his quest
for nuclear weapons. Not likely. Or maybe the young
people in Iran, who realize what he is doing to their
country, will overthrow the little terrorist dictator and
save the day. I’m not holding my breath on that one
either. Well shoot…that pretty much leaves us with the
third option, as illustrated on this shirt!

If anyone thinks that the US will attack Iran within, say, a decade, they are beyond stupid. You may quote me on that, and throw it back at me if I'm wrong.

Judging by posters here on Civilization Fanatics Center and people I've met in real life, there are a whole gaggle of people who are beyond stupid.

 

[Nick Garai]

I'm one of the supids. Each year that goes by means that Iran gets closer to its goal of nuclear weapons.

When a country who has not unleashed its military might yet (the army has not be sent in not the draft in the US activated) but is sending TWO carrier fleets into a region, that says something. Two carrier fleets are not cheap to maintain. You don't keep them their for ten years. Their precense there is intended for something else.

Is an invasion in the next ten years going to happen? Most likely. Five years? Most possibly? Before the Bush Presidency is over? I'll say yes.

It is just a matter of when now. And it won't be the ten year waiting we are hoping for.

Be prepared for a draft and the army to be mobilized. Iran is much diffrent than Iraq.

 

[newfangle]

I don't know much about American politics, but would Bush need the full support of-oh I don't know- congress or something?

And when you say 'invasion' do you mean full scale occupation? You can call Bush stupid all you want, but I'm pretty sure even his most ******** advisers would call that unfeasible no matter the circumstances.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't know much about American politics, but would Bush need the full support of-oh I don't know- congress or something?

And when you say 'invasion' do you mean full scale occupation? You can call Bush stupid all you want, but I'm pretty sure even his most ******** advisers would call that unfeasible no matter the circumstances.

Maybe. But keep in mind he wants to be seen as unwavering to terrorism. A great many of his supporters are in favor of invading Iran. An invasion of Iran might even help the Republicans at the polling place. "They're tough on terrorism!" Whereas the girly men Democrats are too wimpy to want to go to war. The deaths of thousands of American soldiers and thousands of Iranians are irrelevant in the decision making process, as far as Republicans are concerned. So far, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and many more Iraqis seem completely irrelevant to Republicans.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

When a country who has not unleashed its military might yet (the army has not be sent in not the draft in the US activated) but is sending TWO carrier fleets into a region, that says something. Two carrier fleets are not cheap to maintain. You don't keep them their for ten years. Their precense there is intended for something else.

The Aircraft Carriers are in the Persian Gulf, and can be used for Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not mean anything will happen with Iran.

 

[CaptainF]

I'm one of the supids. Each year that goes by means that Iran gets closer to its goal of nuclear weapons.

When a country who has not unleashed its military might yet (the army has not be sent in not the draft in the US activated) but is sending TWO carrier fleets into a region, that says something. Two carrier fleets are not cheap to maintain. You don't keep them their for ten years. Their precense there is intended for something else.

Is an invasion in the next ten years going to happen? Most likely. Five years? Most possibly? Before the Bush Presidency is over? I'll say yes.

It is just a matter of when now. And it won't be the ten year waiting we are hoping for.

Be prepared for a draft and the army to be mobilized. Iran is much diffrent than Iraq.

Haha, great!

No way in hell they are drafting. If they draft to go to war with Iran, there's gonna be a war in the streets they will have to tend too as well.

 

[innonimatu]

The goal is to destroy Iran as an independent state, or at least as one capable of exercising power outside its borders (think Iraq post-1992). It does not require occupation, only enough damage to destroy the ability of a central government to control the whole country, and a set of economic sanctions reinforced by a permanent threat of further attacks (effective to prevent investment from other countries).

As things stand it would be interesting to know how many countries are sending ships to the area (most european countries currently have ships in the eastern Mediterranean), how many of those are minesweepers or provide support for anti-submarine warfare or amphibious landings, how are oil futures markets, how is Pakistan aligning in the game, and what is the alignment of the new government in Turkmenistan. Oil futures are starting to rise, but that can have many causes (markets can be notoriously blind to politics). Musharraf has been busy visiting sunni arab capitals, and has been received as an ally in a manned never before seen with pakistani heads of state. The situation in Turkmenistan should become clearer after the election in February 11 to replace Niyazov (who has died at a most convenient time) – the current power struggle ensures this last tentative ally of Iran will at least not interfere with any war (perhaps even cooperate?).

The US has been busy setting up a sunni coalition against Iran. Even Saddam’s hanging and the current political confrontation in Lebanon have been conveniently timed to foster a sunni-shiite divide throughout the Middle East. It’s also noteworthy that with european troops stationed in Lebanon, european countries can easily be drawn into a war, if necessary. Iran will not be able to retaliate against Israel, or expect syrian aid, without involving europe in the war. A well placed “terrorist” attack against those troops might even succeed in suppressing most public opposition to a war by europeans...
If a war against Iran is going to happen, it’s going to happen soon - the pieces are all in place, and the circumstances are as good as they can get. There’s still the small hope that maybe, just maybe, it’s all a big bluff. But I have this bad feeling from early 2003 again: that war has already been decided by the powers that be, and is impossible to prevent.

 

[Zande33]

I've never really thought about it, but maybe we're trying to break the Middle East for a war agaisnt Iran. I mean, Lebanon is out of the picture, so is Afganistan and now Iraq. What's left? Pakistan wouldn't declare war if we were to go to war with Iran, unless they wanted Israel on their ass. And by 2012, we're all dead.

(these are ramblings not to be taken seriously)

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

While I believe it is possible that the Bushites had Iran in their sights in 2002 when they first dreamed up the Iraq adventure, I think any plan they had for Iran has been thoroughly foiled by the Iraq mess. To assume the Americans planned a civil war in Iraq as a part of a plan against Iran is ridiculous. America hoped for a stable Iraq that could be used as a reliable forward base.

Xenocrates, you give Bush and the gang too much credit in assuming that their massive failures in Iraq were actually part of a bigger scheme.

 

[skadistic]

The Aircraft Carriers are in the Persian Gulf, and can be used for Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not mean anything will happen with Iran.

They can also be used as interdiction forces in the gulf to enforce the UN sanctions.

 

[thenooblet22]

Do you honestly believe that Congress will allow another war? Bush has no majority no matter how loud he whines.

And for all of you flamers, the United States will only fall apart in your wet dreams. Actually, I'd be glad when we're not number one, then you can start being jealous of someone else.

 

[Xenocrates]

Let me take you back a few years and a few tears. The old arguments that we had on here went like this:

Minority: "There's no evidence of WMD's"

Majority: "That's crazy conspiracy talk, if it turns out that there were no WMD's Bush will be burned"

Well here we are and I don't smell cooking flesh coming in on the west wind. Empires cannot be run as democracies on a 5 year term. The Democrats have not impeached Mr Bush and the vast majority of them have been supportive of the whole adventure. It's implausible to suggest that the GOP didn't get this OK-ed by the Dems before it started.

So where's the political pressure going to come from? The way I see it the bigger the fiasco, the longer the Reps will be out of office. The Dems will make a few whimpers about how this is Bush's fault but they won't take the rational step and stop the guy, because then the blame for defeat will fall on them. In 20 years people will be saying "Bush would have pulled it off it not for those pesky Dem kids". Of course if the Dems cared more about their country and less about themselves the equation would be different....

That's the domestic position; what about internationally? Why aren't China, India, Russia, the Europeans etc on Bush's case?

1) China. After the disaster of Vietnam America was caged for most of the seventies until Reagan reinvigorated it. How is it in their interests to speak out? More hate towards America = more customers for them.

2) India. They can walk in the shadow of 'the war on terror' and supress Kashmir. They also want to court America in case the border situations with China or Pakistan flare up again.

3) Russia. Higher hydrocabon prices are likely to ensue to this is a no-brainer.

4) Europe. Germany has historical reasons to side against the enemies of Israel. Britain's culpable so they'll not want to rock the boat. That leaves the French I guess.

So where's the political pressure to stop this going to come from?

 

[Winner]

Even though I despise Iran, America has not got the chops to take on Iran and Iraq...

That is the sad state of the 'sole superpower' in this day and age.

...

Exactly.

I hope they know what they're doing, because if the US starts another war it can't win and then let the rest bear the repercussions, many people will get very, very angry.

"If you attack Iran, you'll destroy a great empire!"
"Which one? Iran, or America?"

 

[Kyriakos]

The oracle at Brnodelphoi has spoken

 

[Xenocrates]

I'm inclined to agree with Winner to an extent. The dollar's only 51p now and 1.3 euros.

Worse still the social rifts that this will open up are huge, but the US will recover.

Seriously if an attack on Iran was written in the clouds it wouldn't be any more predictable. It reminds me of 'the man with two brains'; when Steve Martin's characcter asks for a sign that he shouldn't marry the girl and the pictures start spinning etc. and he still doesn't see it.

 

[GinandTonic]

I'm inclined to agree with Winner to an extent. The dollar's only 51p now and 1.3 euros.

Dollar converts to 0.7738 euros. T'other way round.