War on Iran

[erskine]

Seems China want to take part too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPjxeyG-Ztw

[bishopdante]

Seems China want to take part too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPjxeyG-Ztw

The relationships between Persia and China go waaaaay back into antiquity.

I would also add that the nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program, so this argument of nuclear capability is somewhat disingenuous.

[galanter]

For years Iran denied nuclear development of any kind at all. When the evidence became overwhelming their response was to admit nuclear development, but to deny it was towards nuclear weapons. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons then throwing open all doors to inspectors should be a simple thing to do. The world waits.

why should they? open to whom? last time I checked Iran is an independent country to which was proven nothing of these allegations.

Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency and thus is bound by the treaties of membership. This includes non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and being open to inspection.

[Luzwei]

For years Iran denied nuclear development of any kind at all. When the evidence became overwhelming their response was to admit nuclear development, but to deny it was towards nuclear weapons. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons then throwing open all doors to inspectors should be a simple thing to do. The world waits.

why should they? open to whom? last time I checked Iran is an independent country to which was proven nothing of these allegations.

Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency and thus is bound by the treaties of membership. This includes non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and being open to inspection.

And there is a war crime court in the world and the us is not accepting it and it's existence. Tit for tat I guess.

[brisket]

The Iranians say they don't want nukes. They don't have any and aren't making any. Not even the Americans, not even the Israelis claim that they are.

But it probably doesn't matter. Remember how Iraq gave complete access to weapons inspectors and how that didn't matter? The Americans are pants-shittingly scared of any Middle Eastern country that isn't a client state.

[Andrew.]

The Iranians say they don't want nukes. They don't have any and aren't making any. Not even the Americans, not even the Israelis claim that they are.

But it probably doesn't matter. Remember how Iraq gave complete access to weapons inspectors and how that didn't matter? The Americans are pants-shittingly scared of any Middle Eastern country that isn't a client state.

Well said.

[galanter]

The Iranians say they don't want nukes. They don't have any and aren't making any. Not even the Americans, not even the Israelis claim that they are.

But it probably doesn't matter. Remember how Iraq gave complete access to weapons inspectors and how that didn't matter? The Americans are pants-shittingly scared of any Middle Eastern country that isn't a client state.

Well said.

The UN found Iraq in noncompliance. There was little to no disagreement about this. The disagreement was whether noncompliance automatically triggered the allowing of use of force, or whether an explicit vote on use of force was needed despite agreement Iraq was in noncompliance.

Iran is now in a similar situation. Whatever the state of their nuclear program they are in violation of the treaties they are parties to. This isn't just in the opinion of the US. Many countries agree this is the case. The point of debate is what to do about it.

[Luzwei]

The Iranians say they don't want nukes. They don't have any and aren't making any. Not even the Americans, not even the Israelis claim that they are.

But it probably doesn't matter. Remember how Iraq gave complete access to weapons inspectors and how that didn't matter? The Americans are pants-shittingly scared of any Middle Eastern country that isn't a client state.

Well said.

The UN found Iraq in noncompliance. There was little to no disagreement about this. The disagreement was whether noncompliance automatically triggered the allowing of use of force, or whether an explicit vote on use of force was needed despite agreement Iraq was in noncompliance.

Iran is now in a similar situation. Whatever the state of their nuclear program they are in violation of the treaties they are parties to. This isn't just in the opinion of the US. Many countries agree this is the case. The point of debate is what to do about it.

Not really. It's about the oil.

[galanter]

"It's about the oil" is always a sort of knee-jerk reaction to any conflict in the middle east. It's true that stability of the region becomes a national priority due to oil. That's not something unique to the US or even the west.

But it's not like the US backs up tankers and steals the oil. (Although the local governments may arguably be stealing it from their own people.) The US and other countries just want to pay good money to buy it.

If it was truly "about the oil" the US would drop support for Israel and buddy up to other countries based on the status of their dipstick. We don't do that.

[Luzwei]

No, not really. It's really about the oil. It has always been about it. Kuwait, Iraq. Now Iran. Yeah it's about the oil.

[galanter]

No, not really. It's really about the oil. It has always been about it. Kuwait, Iraq. Now Iran. Yeah it's about the oil.

I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say that then.

[Luzwei]

No, not really. It's really about the oil. It has always been about it. Kuwait, Iraq. Now Iran. Yeah it's about the oil.

I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say that then.

You'll get there, you'll get there.

[brisket]

Iran hasn't threatened anyone. They're not insane or stupid.

Why would there be talk of military action against a peaceful nation on the basis that they maybe, potentially, in future could develop a weapon (technology already owned by several by several neighbouring states, including less peaceful, stable and sane ones)?

It's an evil, insane proposition. So those proposing it are either incredibly stupid or have something to gain. How many billions were funnelled to private contractors in Iraq, and what were the margins for selling Iraqi oil via an uncontested contract with the government?

So in a sense, saying 'it's about the oil' is a compliment to the US foreign policy establishment. It implies they're corrupt and evil, rather than retarded and evil.

(They're probably both.)

[Cranius]

No, not really. It's really about the oil. It has always been about it. Kuwait, Iraq. Now Iran. Yeah it's about the oil.

I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say that then.

It's about oil since if the Straits of Hormuz were to close the resulting spike in oil prices and the inflationary knock-on effect would serve Western economic interests. It's one of the levers Western powers can use to engage in what is called repressonomics, a crude means of solving the debt crisis.

There is only one sure-fire way to provoke an inflation shock and that is to close the Straits of Hormuz, or otherwise cause Middle Eastern oil to cease, temporarily. Diplomacy anyone?

Oil is the issue here, rather than nuclear. If you cause oil prices to rise, you can inflate your debts away.

Meanwhile, Iran is entering the final stage of talks that have been going on since 2009 to arrange to export their uranium to Russia and France to fashion into fuel rods, so it can't be weaponised. It's in Iran's interests to beat the sanctions.

Iran raises hopes of nuclear trade-off to halt oil sanctions

[Andrew.]

It's about oil since if the Straits of Hormuz were to close the resulting spike in oil prices and the inflationary knock-on effect would serve Western economic interests. It's one of the levers Western powers can use to engage in what is called repressonomics, a crude means of solving the debt crisis.

There is only one sure-fire way to provoke an inflation shock and that is to close the Straits of Hormuz, or otherwise cause Middle Eastern oil to cease, temporarily. Diplomacy anyone?

Oil is the issue here, rather than nuclear. If you cause oil prices to rise, you can inflate your debts away.

Thanks for this.

[Wood Goblin]

No, not really. It's really about the oil. It has always been about it. Kuwait, Iraq. Now Iran. Yeah it's about the oil.

I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say that then.

It's about oil since if the Straits of Hormuz were to close the resulting spike in oil prices and the inflationary knock-on effect would serve Western economic interests. It's one of the levers Western powers can use to engage in what is called repressonomics, a crude means of solving the debt crisis.

There is only one sure-fire way to provoke an inflation shock and that is to close the Straits of Hormuz, or otherwise cause Middle Eastern oil to cease, temporarily. Diplomacy anyone?

A spike in oil prices could also have a deleterious effect on Western economic interests, if the spike is so severe that retailers find it difficult to absorb. More problematic is how this analysis gels with the pretty universal belief among leftists that bankers control the economic agenda of Western nations. After all, inflation erodes the value of their debt too.

[Cranius]

A spike in oil prices could also have a deleterious effect on Western economic interests, if the spike is so severe that retailers find it difficult to absorb. More problematic is how this analysis gels with the pretty universal belief among leftists that bankers control the economic agenda of Western nations. After all, inflation erodes the value of their debt too.

Well, George Osborne for one is all-in for financial repression. This is why he's releasing 100-year gilts, which operate as a sort of perpetual debt, last issued in the 19th century and first introduced after the South-Sea Bubble.

As it becomes clear that austerity won't work, other riskier options will be pursued. And as you say, the effects could equally be deleterious, but the temptation in the crisis is to displace the problem. You can do this temporally as with long-yield debts or spatially by exporting your crisis in the form of trade wars, embargoes and if it comes to it, actual war.

I mean, they don't need a full-on hot war to spike the prices enough to double gas or petrol. This is why the stand-off with Iran is pure spectacle.

Remember when Enron was instigating rolling black-outs in California in order to spike the energy prices? Think of that but on larger-scale and with millions of more lives at stake.

[Wood Goblin]

A spike in oil prices could also have a deleterious effect on Western economic interests, if the spike is so severe that retailers find it difficult to absorb. More problematic is how this analysis gels with the pretty universal belief among leftists that bankers control the economic agenda of Western nations. After all, inflation erodes the value of their debt too.

Well, George Osborne for one is all-in for financial repression. This is why he's releasing 100-year gilts, which operate as a sort of perpetual debt, last issued in the 19th century and first introduced after the South-Sea Bubble.

As it becomes clear that austerity won't work, other riskier options will be pursued. And as you say, the effects could equally be deleterious, but the temptation in the crisis is to displace the problem. You can do this temporally as with long-yield debts or spatially by exporting your crisis in the form of trade wars, embargoes and if it comes to it, actual war.

I mean, they don't need a full-on hot war to spike the prices enough to double gas or petrol. This is why the stand-off with Iran is pure spectacle.

Remember when Enron was instigating rolling black-outs in California in order to spike the energy prices? Think of that but on larger-scale and with millions of more lives at stake.

I guess I just don't see there being any attempt to raise oil prices via conflict with Iran. An increase to the rate of inflation would certainly be a good thing, but all countries of the west (excepting Iceland and perhaps one or two others) have been adamantly opposed to increasing inflation even using the conventional tools at their disposal. It's utterly confounding how so many members of the west's central banks believe rampant inflation is just around the corner. Remember the European Central bank raising rates last year?

And I also can't see any of the powers that be suddenly becoming convinced that austerity doesn't work, even as the evidence of its failure stares them in the face.

[Cranius]

Head of Israeli Military says he doesn't think Iran will develop nuclear weapons:

Iran undecided on nuclear bomb - Israel

[jimmy two hands]

Head of Israeli Military says he doesn't think Iran will develop nuclear weapons:

Iran undecided on nuclear bomb - Israel

Maybe he noticed that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons?