Iran sanctions bring unintended, unwanted results

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 24, 2012 4:10 PM GMT
    * Sanctions drive up oil prices, hurting global economy

    * Heightened economic pressure could make Iran more volatile

    * Little evidence Tehran deflected from nuclear programme


    By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

    LONDON, March 23 (Reuters) - Western sanctions have so far failed to deter Iran from pursuing its nuclear programme and their unexpected and unintended side-effects are producing a new collection of challenges.

    The expected loss of Iranian crude production has helped push oil prices to levels seen threatening the global economy.

    Already Iran's oil exports appear to have fallen this month by some 300,000 barrels per day (bpd), or 14 percent, the first sizeable drop in shipments this year, according to estimates from industry consultant Petrologistics and an oil company.

    Oil rose sharply on the news, with Brent jumping to over $127 a barrel, up almost $4 from the day's low.

    Meanwhile, many Iran-watchers, including some Western officials, worry that far from producing compliance, ratcheting up the economic pressure is making the Islamic Republic more volatile, unpredictable and perhaps dangerous.

    full story: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/iran-sanctions-bring-unintended-unwanted-results/
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Mar 25, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    Pouncer said

    But hey, if Westerners fancy oil at $160-a-barrel, (possibly up to $240-a-barrel if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz), than that's up to them.



    I think the Iranians know full well that they can never effectively close the Straits of Hormuz. They can try -- and it might last for about 5 minutes -- until Nato swoops in and blows their asses right out of the water. For this reason, I do not believe the Iranians would do something so stupid because they actually have very little to gain (if anything) and pretty much everything to lose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2012 6:05 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    But hey, if Westerners fancy oil at $160-a-barrel, (possibly up to $240-a-barrel if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz), than that's up to them.



    I think the Iranians know full well that they can never effectively close the Straits of Hormuz. They can try -- and it might last for about 5 minutes -- until Nato swoops in and blows their asses right out of the water. For this reason, I do not believe the Iranians would do something so stupid because they actually have very little to gain (if anything) and pretty much everything to lose.

    I actually agree with Todd?
    Is the earth hurtling towards the sun or something?


    And you actually agreed with me once too !!!! What on earth is wrong?

    Of course that's pretty easy if pouncer or RLD is involved.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Mar 25, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    But hey, if Westerners fancy oil at $160-a-barrel, (possibly up to $240-a-barrel if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz), than that's up to them.



    I think the Iranians know full well that they can never effectively close the Straits of Hormuz. They can try -- and it might last for about 5 minutes -- until Nato swoops in and blows their asses right out of the water. For this reason, I do not believe the Iranians would do something so stupid because they actually have very little to gain (if anything) and pretty much everything to lose.


    Not necessarily. Iran could easily mine the straits, or restrict it to only certain types of shipping. A right of innocent passage does not constitute a right of free passage. Regarding international waterways:

    "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state."

    -- Convention on the Territorial Sea

    The US, as you know, supports registered terrorist organizations (MKO, PJAK, Jundollah) inside Iran. It is also waging a controversial war inside the territory of one of Iran's immediate neighbours (Afghanistan), and is arguably causing major instability within the territory of another immediate neighbour (Pakistan). What isn't deniable is that the US is supplying material aid to regional dictatorships currently locked in armed struggles with their own people (Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt).

    The problem with your NATO scenario is that the UN Security Council wouldn't countenance an armed assault. And America is likely at the stage now where it will not second-guess China on a matter of global security.






    I'm pretty confident that, should Iran try in any way try to disrupt the world's oil supply (which would also hurt Iran), the world will act swiftly and decisively to nip it in the bud. Iran simply isn't going to be allowed to run amuck, not when the world economy is already teetering as it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2012 8:47 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    But hey, if Westerners fancy oil at $160-a-barrel, (possibly up to $240-a-barrel if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz), than that's up to them.



    I think the Iranians know full well that they can never effectively close the Straits of Hormuz. They can try -- and it might last for about 5 minutes -- until Nato swoops in and blows their asses right out of the water. For this reason, I do not believe the Iranians would do something so stupid because they actually have very little to gain (if anything) and pretty much everything to lose.
    I wish someone could explain that to the idiots in the commodities markets.icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Mar 25, 2012 9:28 PM GMT
    Pouncer said

    The US is already "running amok" in about five countries right now.
    In regard to the Straits of Hormuz, there's no need for Iran to cut off the world's oil supply to make its point clear to America and its allies.



    I think you have an inflated idea of Iran's real power in the world. As it stands, they are essentially small potatoes. They could be taken out in a matter of minutes if the U.S. and allies were pushed to that point to avoid an economic disaster due to an irresponsible Iran. In fact, most of the middle east would probably be on the side of the U.S. if Iran were even going to think about cutting of the Straits of Hormuz. It simply would not be good for anyone, especially Iran.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 25, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    The US is already "running amok" in about five countries right now.
    In regard to the Straits of Hormuz, there's no need for Iran to cut off the world's oil supply to make its point clear to America and its allies.


    I think you have an inflated idea of Iran's real power in the world. As it stands, they are essentially small potatoes.


    Iran is not small potatoes with respect to international trade in petroleum. If the U.S. sanctions were 100% effective, there would be a world wide shortfall in oil and a corresponding big increase in its price. We have already seen rising gas prices at the pump here in the U.S. Fortunately, the sanctions are being ignored by Europe and just about everybody else when it comes to petroleum.

    Fortunately, the U.S. attempt to destroy the Iranian economy and cause a corresponding world wide depression has been diverted for now. Isn't it time that the U.S. government stops taking its marching orders from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

    see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Mar 25, 2012 10:23 PM GMT
    tokugawa said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    The US is already "running amok" in about five countries right now.
    In regard to the Straits of Hormuz, there's no need for Iran to cut off the world's oil supply to make its point clear to America and its allies.


    I think you have an inflated idea of Iran's real power in the world. As it stands, they are essentially small potatoes.


    Iran is not small potatoes with respect to international trade in petroleum. If the U.S. sanctions were 100% effective, there would be a world wide shortfall in oil and a corresponding big increase in its price. We have already seen rising gas prices at the pump here in the U.S. Fortunately, the sanctions are being ignored by Europe and just about everybody else when it comes to petroleum.

    Fortunately, the U.S. attempt to destroy the Iranian economy and cause a corresponding world wide depression has been diverted for now. Isn't it time that the U.S. government stops taking its marching orders from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

    see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac



    I didn't mean they are small potatoes with respect to international trade in petroleum, I meant that they are small potatoes in terms of how easily they could be shut down if they tried to act up. Your assertion that the U.S. is attempting to "destroy the Iranian economy and cause a corresponding world wide depression" is utterly absurd. Finally, if ever there was a President who does NOT take his marching orders from AIPAC, it's President Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2012 1:56 PM GMT
    ROTFL. Is anyone surprised that for hatists like tokugawa and pouncer this is all about Israel?

    Or that AyaTrollah pouncer is still quoting the Iranian regime (from which he takes his orders), including the innocent sounding "PressTV" - which was reporting that there were only dozens of Syrians killed at a time that thousands had already been butchered?!

    What's even more curious is the larger argument:

    1. Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. (Never mind that we keep discovering new secret/undeclared and illegal enrichment facilities that aren't monitored by IAEA and that no one can say for what other reason Iran needs so much enriched Uranium.)

    2. A military attack is Iraq all over again.
    Impose sanctions instead.
    Sanctions work.

    3. Sanctions are only hurting us and there's "Little evidence Tehran [is] deflected from nuclear programme "

    Seems clear to me that some people WANT Iran to have nukes.
    After all, that will keep the great satan from running amock.
    And if they nuke the little satan, so much the better.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Mar 26, 2012 3:37 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 said
    Seems clear to me that some people WANT Iran to have nukes.
    After all, that will keep the great satan from running amock.
    And if they nuke the little satan, so much the better.



    Pouncer clearly hates Israel and the U.S. --- It's like he's a terrorist waiting to strike.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
    Oh, my, did propaganda pouncer just barf on everyone's screens?

    Israel, of course, was not "founded on another people's dispossession". There was no "dispossession" prior to the 1948 Arab plan for a "momentous massacre" and a war to "throw the Jews into the sea".

    All of which has been discussed in great detail elsewhere, but doesn't prevent the AyaTrollah and a few other propagandists from repeating their lies-for-the-cause as often as they can in search of a useful idiot who will fall victim to it.

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    For anyone interested in promoting peace rather than rehashing history:

    UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba.
    I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters.
    Yet the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls do not.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Yalla, Peace!
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1285693
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 26, 2012 9:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    tokugawa said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    The US is already "running amok" in about five countries right now.
    In regard to the Straits of Hormuz, there's no need for Iran to cut off the world's oil supply to make its point clear to America and its allies.


    I think you have an inflated idea of Iran's real power in the world. As it stands, they are essentially small potatoes.


    Iran is not small potatoes with respect to international trade in petroleum. If the U.S. sanctions were 100% effective, there would be a world wide shortfall in oil and a corresponding big increase in its price. We have already seen rising gas prices at the pump here in the U.S. Fortunately, the sanctions are being ignored by Europe and just about everybody else when it comes to petroleum.

    The U.S. attempt to destroy the Iranian economy and cause a corresponding world wide depression has been diverted for now. Isn't it time that the U.S. government stops taking its marching orders from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

    see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac



    I didn't mean they are small potatoes with respect to international trade in petroleum, I meant that they are small potatoes in terms of how easily they could be shut down if they tried to act up. Your assertion that the U.S. is attempting to "destroy the Iranian economy and cause a corresponding world wide depression" is utterly absurd. Finally, if ever there was a President who does NOT take his marching orders from AIPAC, it's President Obama.


    1. If the U.S. is successful in halting exports of oil from Iran, do you really expect everything will just be OK?

    2. "Shutting down" Iran would result in the same shortfall in petroleum output, and the corresponding increase in oil prices. With the world already depressed from the last severe recession, another economic shock like a disruption of the internation petroleum market could definitely cause a world wide depression.

    3. Exactly how would Iran be able to prove a negative; that is how do they prove they are NOT buiding a nuclear weapon, the thing that the U.S. and Israel demand? As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), inspectors can examine all of Iran's nuclear sites which are in operation, and the inspectors have been saying for some time now that there has been no diversion of Iran's nuclear material. The U.S. mass media likes to ignore this fact, and the fact that Iran is a party to the NPT.

    4. President Obama addressed the annual meeting of AIPAC, and Israeli leaders were pleased. One news account said:

    "Obama's tough language won praise in Israel as an unprecedented show of support for the Jewish state.

    "We've never heard such a supportive speech in Israel," Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel Radio Monday, adding that U.S.-Israel coordination was now "almost perfect.""


    source: http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-leaders-praise-obamas-aipac-speech-085131908.html

    How does his speech indicate that he does not take his marching orders from AIPAC?

    5. Is there any U.S. financial aid to Israel that AIPAC supports that doesn't get passed by Congress and signed into law by the President?

    The last time AIPAC suffered a defeat in Washington was when they opposed the 1982 AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia, 30 years ago.

    6. A report by The Industrial College of the Armed Forces entitled, "The Agenda and Political Techniques of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," published in 1993, contains the following:

    "AIPAC is extremely effective in using its Congressional influence to defend Israeli interests. In fact, “AIPAC has a near stranglehold over Capitol Hill policies relating to Israel,” stated a former legislative director to a powerful senator. The staffer continued by stating that: “Everyone recognizes that it is in the United States’ interest to support Israel for strategic reasons, but the question is how much aid is sufficient. AIPAC effectively muzzles criticism and precludes any sort of balanced approach.”

    "This source spoke on a non-attribution basis, a reflection of AIPAC’s power, because she feared that negative comments about AIPAC could jeopardize a possible position in the Clinton Administration. The staffer added that AIPAC often skews the United States’ policy options in the Middle East. For example, if Israeli interests are challenged in the Senate, AIPAC immediately organizes a Senate resolution, sponsored by a pro-Israel senator. Then through its personal and constituent networks, AIPAC secures the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate to forestall any perceived anti-Israeli issues
    ."

    full report at: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AIPAC.pdf
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 26, 2012 10:52 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidOh, my, did propaganda pouncer just barf on everyone's screens?
    ...

    c4 reaches new lows in dishonest debating. Since c4 cannot refute Pouncer's arguments, c4 turns to his dirty name-calling and insults. What a class act! Meanwhile, RealJock refuses to enforce its rules against personal attacks.

    Wolverine4 saidIsrael, of course, was not "founded on another people's dispossession".
    ...

    Only Israel was founded on another people's dispossession. Without the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinian civilians, Jews would only comprise 60% of Israel, not enough to guarantee permanent Jewish control. So with massacres and forced transfers (see: Benny Morris' book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949) the Zionists reduced the non-Jewish population of Israel to below 20%.

    After the war, many of the goyim (non-Jewish) Israelis were prohibited from living in the houses they owned, because the state of Israel had confiscated them. And most of the owners never received any compensation.

    Wolverine4 said ... There was no "dispossession" prior to the 1948 Arab plan for a "momentous massacre" and a war to "throw the Jews into the sea".
    ...

    And what source do you cite for your allegation? Since there is no credible source for the alleged "1948 Arab plan," c4 never gives a source. He just repeats his lies over and over and over again.

    It was actually the indigenous goyim who got thrown into the sea when the Irgun helped capture their cities like Haifa, like Jaffa. In fact, all of the costal cites of Palestine suffered the same fate of ethnic cleansing.

    The Zionists had Plan D (Plan Dalet) which contained orders not just to ethnically cleanse a village, but to destroy it, so not a trace was left, even if the villagers were peaceful. Over 400 Arab villages were in fact ethnically cleansed and destroyed.

    Wolverine4 said ... Arabs are not indigenous to Israel ...


    And black is white,
    up is down, and
    war is peace.

    c4 believes repeating his lies often enough will convince people that his lies are actually the truth. FAIL.

    Wolverine4 said ... I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters ...


    Yet the war-mongering Israeli Prime Minister DOES NOT. Netanyahu is on record as OPPOSING COMPROMISE with the Palestinians. He also supports continued Zionist expansion in the West Bank, which now has over 300,000 settlers. The ultimate goal is a West Bank free of goyim.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    ROTFL.

    Is anyone surprised that for hatists like tokugawa and pouncer this is all about Israel?

    tokugawa> screenfuls of anti-Israel propaganda

    pouncer> screenfuls of anti-Israel propaganda

    I'm glad to see that we're in agreement that Arabs were not "dispossessed" or "displaced" prior to the 1948 war which the Arabs started. Pretty much everything else claimed by these clowns is already refuted in the topics I referenced.

    I'll note that while tokugawa references a book by Benny Morris, he does so not only selectively, but continues to push falsehoods that the author retracts in his revised version of the book. (Likewise he contradicts his alleged source on many other points, but this is already documented in the links).

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691


    For anyone interested in promoting peace rather than rehashing history:

    UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba.
    I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters.
    Yet the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls do not.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    war-mongering anti-Israel trolls> [rehash history]

    One new lie that I will reply to here:

    tokugawa> Yet the war-mongering Israeli Prime Minister DOES NOT [support the Clinton compromise]. Netanyahu is on record as OPPOSING COMPROMISE with the Palestinians

    How can you be critical of Netanyahu for not supporting something which you don't support?!

    Regardless, you're - as usual - lying. During the Clinton Administration, Netanyahu (who then also had a stint as Prime Minister) signed the Wye River Memorandum. During the Obama Administration, in an effort to restart negotiations [from which the PA walked away], Netanyahu imposed an unprecedented 10-month moratorium on new construction.

    Other recent headlines:

    Abbas rejects Netanyahu compromises ahead of Palestinian statehood bid
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-rejects-netanyahu-compromises-ahead-of-palestinian-statehood-bid-1.385226

    Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel willing to make 'painful compromises' for peace
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8534577/Benjamin-Netanyahu-Israel-willing-to-make-painful-compromises-for-peace.html

    All of this has already been discussed and can be continued to be discussed in the appropriate topics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2012 3:24 AM GMT
    tokugawa> how would Iran be able to prove a negative; that is how do they prove they are NOT buiding a nuclear weapon, the thing that the U.S. and Israel demand? As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), inspectors can examine all of Iran's nuclear sites which are in operation

    Except that Iran has had a pattern of building new secret/undeclared sites and NOT granting access to insepctors (for months/years). For 18 years, until busted in 2003, they ran an illegal enrichment program with no insepctions.

    tokugawa> the inspectors have been saying for some time now that there has been no diversion of Iran's nuclear material.

    Wrong again. At present there are approximately 20 KG of enriched uranium which is unaccounted for.

    From the IAEA report (24 Feb 2012):
    6. From 29 to 31 January 2012... The Agency requested access to the Parchin site, but Iran did not grant access to the site at that time.

    8. from 20 to 21 February 2012... The Agency reiterated its request for access to Parchin. Iran stated that it was still not able to grant access to that site.

    28. The Agency is still awaiting a substantive response from Iran to Agency requests for further information in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of ten new uranium enrichment facilities, the sites for five of which, according to Iran, have been decided.28 Iran has not provided information, as requested by the Agency in its letter of 18 August 2010, in connection with its announcement on 7 February 2010 that it possessed laser enrichment technology.29 As a result of Iran’s lack of cooperation on those issues, the Agency is unable to verify and report fully on these matters.

    30. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended work on all heavy water related projects,

    32. Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency, in letters to Iran dated 20 October 2011 and 27 January 2012, requested further access to HWPP. The Agency has yet to receive a reply to those letters, and is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP. Based on recent images, the HWPP appears to be in operation. To date, Iran has not provided the Agency with access to the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples.

    40. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.37 Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.

    41. The Annex to the Director General’s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that: prior to the end of 2003 the activities took place under a structured programme; that some continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing.

    45. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran is not implementing its Additional Protocol. The Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including by implementing its Additional Protocol.

    46. As previously reported, in August 2011 the Agency carried out a PIV at the Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory (JHL) to verify, inter alia, nuclear material, in the form of natural uranium metal and process waste, related to conversion experiments carried out by Iran between 1995 and 2002.43,44 The Agency’s measurement of this material was 19.8 kg less than the operator’s declaration of 270.7 kg. In a letter dated 2 November 2011, Iran provided additional information in relation to this discrepancy. In a letter dated 16 December 2011, the Agency informed Iran that, taking into account this additional information, the discrepancy remained, and that, therefore, further information was required of Iran. During discussions with Iran on 13 and 14 February 2012, the Agency requested access to records and personnel involved in the uranium metal conversion experiments. Iran indicated that it no longer possessed the relevant documentation ["the dog ate my paper"] and that the personnel involved were no longer available [to IAEA]. Iran also indicated that the discrepancy may have been caused by there being a higher amount of uranium in the waste than had been measured by the Agency. In light of this, Iran has offered to process all of the waste material and to extract the uranium contained therein. The Agency has begun taking additional destructive analysis samples of material involved. The discrepancy remains to be clarified.

    50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

    51. The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, as explained in GOV/2011/65. Iran did not provide access to Parchin, as requested by the Agency during its two recent visits to Tehran, and no agreement was reached with Iran on a structured approach to resolving all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme.

    53. The Director General urges Iran, as required in the binding resolutions of the Board of Governors and mandatory Security Council resolutions, to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including: implementation of the provisions of its Additional Protocol; implementation of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment related activities; and suspension of heavy water related activities.


    tokugawa, were you ignorant about this that you claimed the opposite?
    Were you just a "useful idiot" who was mislead by others?
    Or were you purposely lying and trying to recruit "useful idiots" to repeat your propaganda?

    If the former, you may want to apologize to RJ readers and retract what you said.
    If the latter, I suppose you'll just muckrake more nonsense about Israel as a diversion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2012 4:48 PM GMT
    i've written this b4, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Persian: محمود احمدی‌نژاد‎) is unlikely 2 remain president of Iran thru 2012. his power struggle w/ Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei left him w/ little real power. i suggest he faces (at best) impeachment.

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2108339,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-mostpopular

    also, Saudi Arabia and other US allies r increasing their oil production 2 offset the loss of Iranian petroleum. as it is, Royal Dutch/Shell is unable 2 payoff nearly $1billion due 2 the sanctions. other importers face similar problems.

    "There are big frustrations with the payment route - the U.S. pressure is really working," said a senior oil source. "It's now nearly impossible to use the banking system."

    Such financial restrictions were in part behind Total's decision to stop purchasing Iranian crude at the end of last year, industry sources say. Total also bought about 100,000 barrels per day from Tehran.

    http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-shell-scrambles-pay-huge-bill-iran-oil-100856887.html

    it remains 2 be seen what Iran's biggest customer, Turkey, does.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 27, 2012 8:39 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidtokugawa> how would Iran be able to prove a negative; that is how do they prove they are NOT buiding a nuclear weapon, the thing that the U.S. and Israel demand? As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), inspectors can examine all of Iran's nuclear sites which are in operation

    c4> Except that Iran has had a pattern of building new secret/undeclared sites and NOT granting access to insepctors (for months/years). For 18 years, until busted in 2003, they ran an illegal enrichment program with no insepctions.


    According to western intelligence, Iran halted it nuclear weapons program in 2003. The U.S. intelligence community unamiously concludes that Iran's nuclear weapons building program has been shut down.

    What proof do you have that Iran is violating the NPT since 2003? Just innuendo and speculation.

    Assassination of Iranian nuclear power experts does not prove anything, but if I was to use your reasoning, it would prove that Israel is assassinating Iranians. The Israeli program of assassinations and kidnappings was once known as "Caesarea," which was once part of your screen name.

    source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidon

    You did not answer the question, 'how could Iran prove that they do not have a nuclear weapons program in operation'? Since you cannot prove a negative, you will never give an answer, instead you just spam your knee-jerk pro-Zionist talking points over and over and over again. c4 FAILs again, bigtime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2012 11:44 PM GMT
    tokugawa> According to western intelligence, Iran halted it nuclear weapons program in 2003

    T1. Those same sources now say this may not have been the case.

    IAEA> The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme

    IAEA> Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device

    IAEA> Iran has not suspended work on all heavy water related projects,

    IAEA> Iran has not provided the Agency with access to the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples.

    So you believe them when they say what you want to hear and not when they don't?!


    T2. There's the issue of the missing enriched Uranium for which Iran is still trying to supply a credible explanation.
    Why did you ignore that?!

    And why did you previously claim:

    tokugawa> the inspectors have been saying for some time now that there has been no diversion of Iran's nuclear material.

    IAEA inspectors> The Agency’s measurement of this material was 19.8 kg less than the operator’s declaration

    T3. Was that an error - you weren't aware of this missing material - or an intentional propaganda lie on your part?


    tokugawa> You did not answer the question, 'how could Iran prove that they do not have a nuclear weapons program in operation'? Since you cannot prove a negative

    T4. I advocated they provide access to the sites - and cooperate with IAEA inspectors- as required by the NPT.
    Why did you ignore this, too?

    Now let's see if you can answer my question:

    T5. What non-military uses does Iran have for 20% enriched uranium - and why do they need so much of it, running thousands of centrifuges?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2012 1:14 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    JPtheBITCH said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said

    But hey, if Westerners fancy oil at $160-a-barrel, (possibly up to $240-a-barrel if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz), than that's up to them.



    I think the Iranians know full well that they can never effectively close the Straits of Hormuz. They can try -- and it might last for about 5 minutes -- until Nato swoops in and blows their asses right out of the water. For this reason, I do not believe the Iranians would do something so stupid because they actually have very little to gain (if anything) and pretty much everything to lose.

    I actually agree with Todd?
    Is the earth hurtling towards the sun or something?


    And you actually agreed with me once too !!!! What on earth is wrong?

    Of course that's pretty easy if pouncer or RLD is involved.




    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Hey OLD GEEZER, (freedomisn'tfree) I'm back from my extended trip, I know you missed reality checks since I've been gone.


    Did you read from the ISRAELI HAARETZ NEWS while I was away ? The Mossad and 'other' inteligence as well as ours and the IAEA are still saying there is no proof at all that the Iranians have restarted efforts to make a Nuke.


    Did Israel decide yet to open up their Nuke program to the IAEA for inspection ?

    Has Israel admitted to its stealing Nuke info from the US and keeping their Nuke program secret from the US until caught back when they started it ?

    Were you aware that Iran has been much more cooperative with the IAEA from the begining of its Nuke program than Israel has ever been ?

    Is Israel 'special' in some way that they should get a pass on their lack of Nuke cooperation, all the while pushing for sanctions and to start another of their goddamn wars, this time with Iran over their much more open Nuke program?

    Oh what a tangled web we're weaving by being lap dogs to the Israeli Lobby for their election funding influence and money. These unintended results from sanctions and interference in Iran are just rewards for falling for the repub and Israeli Lobby Neo Con tactics at interventionism in the Middle East. and now the idiots are trying to blame the high cost of gas on Obama. LOL !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2012 1:20 AM GMT
    LIL'AIPAC' (wolverine4) must still be under the impression that readers are stupid and that if he repeats his Israeli Lobby bullshit enough times that it will become fact.


    READ from Haaretz News, there are several articles stating that there is no proof at all the Iran restarted its Nuke Bomb program, Israel's inteligence arm has repeated this information time and time again over the last year or so to tamp down the Israeli Neo Con Learderships pushing for war. CAN YOU READ LIL'AIPAC' ?