Is Iran coming in from the cold?

[Silurian]

A barrel is 0.1364 tonne according to BP.

http://www.bp.com/conversionfactors.jsp

The economics do not look good.

 

[Borachio]

No. You're right. It's a wonder anyone buys fertilizer. Still, let's go with plastics then. I'm going to get these Iranians to keep this oil, if it kills me.

There's no point them flooding the market with cheap oil. I've only just got used to paying £1.50 a litre for the stuff.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yes, Iran is coming in from the cold. Not because of Rowhani, but because of Supreme Leader Khamenei. And yes, I think he actually is pretty much in charge; look at his title for crying out loud. (OK OK, leaders can be deposed, but still...)

There have been numerous attempt by the Islamist Iran to re-approach the West. Mostly they've been turned down by the West.

OMG, I find myself agreeing with Winner. I feel a chill, because Hell just froze over (and Ann Arbor, Michigan is only 20 miles from Hell).

 

[Cutlass]

Iran produces 5% of the world’s oil. Any extended attack on Iran would stop the Iranian oil supply.

35% of the world’s oil goes through Iranian territorial waters in the Straits of Hormuz. Iran could stop the oil tankers for a limited time and could disrupt them for longer. The Iraqi’s sustained over 10000 casualties fighting to capture Khorramshahr from the Revolutionary Guard, who were untrained at the time and armed manly with small arms. How many marines will die?

Iraq has a Shia government and Basra and the oil ports are in Shia areas. How much of the 4% of Iraq's share of the worlds oil would be disrupted in Iraq.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (in the oil producing area) has large Shia minorities. How will attacks on the oil production facilities or workforce disrupt production?

How much will the price of oil rise?

I'm not actually concerned about significant American casualties in any conventional military battle against Iran. They are, quite simply, not in our league. That said, the Iranians are not stupid. And they've watched, at close proximity, on 2 of their borders, the US lose unconventional wars in the long run.

They know they could do the same.

 

[Silurian]

I wouldn't expect the Iranians to mount a conventional defence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Rouhani received a mixed reaction upon his return to Tehran:

TEHRAN — Dozens of protesters hurled eggs and at least one shoe at President Hassan Rouhani as he returned to Tehran on Saturday after a groundbreaking phone call with President Obama and other outreach to the West at an annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations.

The protest — coming even as supporters gathered at the airport to cheer his diplomatic outreach — quickly laid bare the political fissures in Iran over whether to engage with the United States, and the challenges Mr. Rouhani and his aides face as they try to have international sanctions over the country’s nuclear program lifted.

Mr. Rouhani was standing in his car, waving through the sunroof as he passed supporters when opponents began to pelt the vehicle. Security guards scrambled to shield the president with an umbrella as other protesters blocked the road by praying on the pavement.

“Long live Rouhani, man of change!” the president’s backers shouted, as a small police contingent struggled to control the crowd of about 200 that seemed mostly to be Rouhani supporters. The hard-liners responded by shouting, “Our people are awake and hate America!”

Security guards eventually pulled Mr. Rouhani back inside his car as it sped off, leaving supporters and opponents behind, some pushing and shoving one another. One protester was almost run over after he threw himself in front of Mr. Rouhani’s car.

 

[Borachio]

Erm... "Dozens of protesters".

 

[Tahuti]

Erm... "Dozens of protesters".

Say no to weasel-fur!

 

[caketastydelish]

I wouldn't expect Iran to mount (much) of a conventional defense either, but that's because any conventional defense would be nowhere near up to the task, not to mention unnecessary.

Iran is roughly 3 times the size of Iraq, plus it has lots of mountains/hills which is much better for guerrilla warfare than in the case of a flat desert like Iraq.

That said I don't think the U.S (or even Iran, for that matter) is actually considering an American occupation of Iran anyway.

The American sanctions on Iran certainly do have teeth in them, and I don't care what anyone says otherwise; the Iranian economy has suffered greatly as a result of our sanctions. To make matters worse for them even though we have no intention of actually invading Iran, the obvious fact that we can kick their butt in conventional warfare any day of the week is just more nails in the coffin. Why would we even want to invade Iran, as in, even if we could? If we control the Persian gulf and have a complete blockade surrounding the country (mostly enforced by aircraft/navy) the government couldn't possibly survive anyway, especially since they're doing pretty bad even as it is.

And then you have to consider that a hell of a lot of Iranian people, not just Iranians living in western countries like myself, but the ones actually in Iran, hate their government anyway. Yes Iran is a Muslim country, but much more in the sense that Turkey is rather than how Saudi Arabia is. That is to say, they (the people) want a secular government.

The Iranian government has two serious enemies: 1) it's own people and 2) the U.S. government.

And Formaldehyde, I'm sorry, I don't care what you say about Obama, but the fact that he is willing to have any talk with this regime is a vice on his part, not a virtue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And Formaldehyde, I'm sorry, I don't care what you say about Obama, but the fact that he is willing to have any talk with this regime is a vice on his part, not a virtue.

Link to video.

 

[caketastydelish]

There are many issues to be had, but just to name two, fighting in support of both women's rights/gay rights and the Iranian government are two things that against each other.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean just like many conservatives in this country?

Back in the early 50s, Iran was a model secular democratic society which set a shining example for the rest of the region. Guess what happened next?

 

[caketastydelish]

You mean just like many conservatives in this country?

Back in the early 50s, Iran was a model secular democratic society which set a shining example for the rest of the region. Guess what happened next?

I live in a redneck conservative town, they're a real funny bunch.

All of them are convinced that Obama is a Muslim/terrorist/communist/etc yet they elected a Muslim from Pakistan as our own Mayor. I couldn't even make that up!

Anyway while conservatives in America certainly have anti-gay, anti-woman tendencies, it's nothing compared to Iran where both women and gays (or both) are STONED to death.

 

[Lord Baal]

I live in a redneck conservative town, they're a real funny bunch.

All of them are convinced that Obama is a Muslim/terrorist/communist/etc yet they elected a Muslim from Pakistan as our own Mayor. I couldn't even make that up!

Anyway while conservatives in America certainly have anti-gay, anti-woman tendencies, it's nothing compared to Iran where both women and gays (or both) are STONED to death.

That likely has something to do with the fact that the Pakistani gentleman wasn't "hiding his true beliefs," as I recall being claimed about Obama during his first election campaign.

This policy of negotiating with Iran smacks of Clinton's democratic enlargement strategy, which was an excellent strategy in theory. As a practically matter it, unfortunately, did not work. But there is no particular reason why it cannot work, merely that the Clinton Administration really didn't know what they were doing with their new foreign policy, which isn't entirely their fault, given they had to change nearly fifty years of entrenched foreign policy culture.

Enlargement has been shown to work in certain regions in the past, before the Clinton Administration gave it an official name - I know it was an NSA staffer who came up with the term, though I don't remember who - such as in South Korea and Spain. The key is that the state being engaged has to actually want something from the US that requires them to reform. I am not sure if Iran wants a rapprochement with the US that much yet. Time will answer that question. There is also the not-inconsiderable risk of a policy change on the part of the Americans as well.

 

[caketastydelish]

The thing is though, is that since the Iranian regime is willing to give in to (any) demands in the first place is proof that they're being crippled.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly hate their own government. The fact that America hates it to just the icing on the cake, not the main part of the package to me.

And no, I don't know/care if the next regime will become a U.S ally/'puppet' or not. The main thing is a secular government that gives people human rights.

They are willing to negotiate with us because we have them right where we want them, not because they like us even in the least. All of this will have been for nothing if we just demand small gains in leu of waiting until their government has been eradicated and replaced by a new regime entirely.

 

[Antilogic]

And Formaldehyde, I'm sorry, I don't care what you say about Obama, but the fact that he is willing to have any talk with this regime is a vice on his part, not a virtue.

I don't understand this. Maintaining diplomatic channels with foreign nations, even with rivals or powers at war, has long been standard practice.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't very well expect diplomats to act diplomatically when there is warmongering for the Saudis and Israelis to do.

 

[caketastydelish]

Dude, my motivations for this regime being crushed has nothing to do with Israel or Saudi Arabia one way or the other.

 

[Lord Baal]

The thing is though, is that since the Iranian regime is willing to give in to (any) demands in the first place is proof that they're being crippled.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly hate their own government. The fact that America hates it to just the icing on the cake, not the main part of the package to me.

And no, I don't know/care if the next regime will become a U.S ally/'puppet' or not. The main thing is a secular government that gives people human rights.

They are willing to negotiate with us because we have them right where we want them, not because they like us even in the least. All of this will have been for nothing if we just demand small gains in leu of waiting until their government has been eradicated and replaced by a new regime entirely.

Bullpies. Iran has been seeking to negotiate with the US since the latter period of the Carter Administration, which is to say for almost the entirety of its existence. What has changed is that the US is finally willing to negotiate with Iran. The most likely reasons for that is that American influence in the region is waning, and the American public no longer supports unilateral action in the Middle East, as evidenced by the unpopularity of the attempt to bomb Syria. This means that the US needs to fundamentally change its foreign policy outlook in the region, and the single most logical way of shifting the current alignment in favour of the US is by co-opting Iran. As such, the US is now finally willing to do so.

Sanctions have literally never worked on a government without other factors, so don't think for one second that the lack of Western consumer goods reaching Iranian shores or the lack of Iranian goods reaching Western shores is what is prompting this.

And I'll need some evidence before I'll believe that the Iranian people "overwhelmingly hate their own government." Ahmadinejad was certainly unpopular, but he was never "the government." If you don't negotiate with them when they are willing, the mullahs will simply dig in deeper and refuse to reform. That is evidenced by North Korea's unwillingness to reform, and a counter-example is offered by the recent Australian opening to Myanmar, which is prompting that state to reform. As I said, enlargement is perfectly capable of working, and has done so in the past. Stubborn refusal to deal with your enemies is why the US has a socialist state just south of Florida, and why it took thirty years to talk to Mao.

I don't understand this. Maintaining diplomatic channels with foreign nations, even with rivals or powers at war, has long been standard practice.

Nope, it's appeasement dude. Talking to anyone about anything when you could just shoot or bomb them is appeasement.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Dude, my motivations for this regime being crushed has nothing to do with Israel or Saudi Arabia one way or the other.

Ah. So it's the big oil interests instead? The ones who had to leave Iran again as they did in the early 50s?

Wake up and smell the propaganda, "dude". This "regime" hasn't done anything that dozens of other countries don't also do on a regular basis, including our so-called friends. Saudi Arabia makes Iran look great by comparison, and so does Bahrain.