Thread: Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

Originally Posted by grip

You're not scared of a skunk or hornet? You're either braver than me or a whole lot dumber.

I'm an ex-paratrooper finishing my PhD (independant research, alone, in Africa). You figure it out.

I'm also not scared of terrorists and whatever you think their massive come-from-behind counter-attack is going to be.

Originally Posted by toomuchtime_

I am not a Turkey hater, I am a Turkey disliker. It's not that I like PKK, it's that I dislike Turkey's lies about PKK being used as an excuse to bomb Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.

you are a liar because you can never prove your claims,you just bring here some kurdish blogger's demafations.....

Originally Posted by EagleAye

Well, it's pretty clear to me that Iran does hate Israel, and they're quite happy supplying weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel with. That's what my concern is about. Israel is quite competent at defending itself. Unfortunately anytime Israel does so it's always considered a wanton act of violence no matter what happened to Israel beforehand. I'd like for Israel to be insulated from that as much as possible in the event that strikes on Iran are carried out.

If strikes are made on Iran, you can be certain that Iran's SSMs (Surface-to-Surface Missiles) are a primary target, because they are likely to be used for retribution strikes on US allies, including Turkey. So anything that can be used against Turkey, Israel, Germany, France, Britain will be hit hard and hit early.

I think everyone would prefer that sanctions have the desired result. But they must work soon or stronger measures must be employed.

ı agree with you but as you see some of you really wait for turkey to be hit...

Originally Posted by EagleAye

Well, lets have a look at this, then. I posted the following links as proof of Iran's proxy war against Israel.
Wikileaks Revelations on – Iran – Hamas – Syria and Turkey | IsraelSeen.com
Iran and its Proxies » Center For Defense Studies
The Enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis :: Middle East Forum
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal.../iran_e004.pdf

Your response was: "Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.," thus you deny this is acceptable proof. From your link defining the authority fallacy we get this:

Since the "people" in all of the links agree on the same point we can determine there is a consensus. But Item #1 must be fulfilled for me to have a valid argument. Remember, a consensus is already reached amongst four separate sources so you must be claiming that I did not produce "legitimate experts," in order for your assertion of a fallacy to be correct. Here are the sources:

You are claiming the:
AEI Center for Defense Studies headed by Tom Donnelly knows nothing about military activities. Here's Tom Donnelly's qualitifications.


You are claiming that Michael Rubin can know nothing about Iran activities. Here are Michael Rubin's qualifications:


You are claiming that the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center headed by Dr. Reuven Erlich knows nothing about the Middle-East intelligence activities. Here are Dr. Reuven Erlich's qualifications:


I think these people qualify as experts, and they reach a consensus. So items 1 and 2 are fulfilled to make a valid argument. I find it interesting that you believe these people aren't qualified. What are your qualifications that say you have more expertise than these people?

You misuderstand the definition of the argument from authority. It is and argument from authority because those people are experts.

The flaw in the logic is to think that just because they are experts, they are right. Anyones' opinion, even an experts, can be wrong. Experts are considered experts because they know the facts. However, just because they know their facts, that doesn't mean that their opinions are always correct.

I's say that both Bill Clinton and George Bush are both experts on being president, having held the office for 8 years each. That doesn't mean that all of their opinions or all of their decisions were correct.

Forget it, Sangha. I was asking about activities within a certain time frame. You failed yet again to answer correctly. The stuxnet virus was outside the time frame. But don't worry, Grip correctly comprehended my request, did not evade, demonstrated a good work ethic and talent for research, and gave an excellent answer.

I'm sorry, but you dont get to decide which history is relevant, and which is not. Stuxnet was discovered in 2010. That's years AFTER 9/11, which is still a very relevant factor wrt our history with Iran. If 9/11 is relevant (and it is), the so is stuxnet

some claim that US has the right to attack any country in the middle east to protect itself but Turkey has no right to defend itself against bloody kurd organizations in its own territory or near its boundary!

and turks kill lots of kurds! but US wil never kill any civillian in case of a war because american army is angel,whereas turkish army is devil!
if they are that democratic and humanist they must react against every war!


how am I supposed to believe in such personalities......

Originally Posted by ecofarm

I'm an ex-paratrooper finishing my PhD (independant research, alone, in Africa). You figure it out.

I'm also not scared of terrorists and whatever you think their massive come-from-behind counter-attack is going to be.

I knew an ex paratrooper who had dropped behind enemy lines several times during WWII. I asked him how he survived and wasn't he scared? He said his fear is what kept him alive.
I also knew a brave Green Beret who served in Vietnam and said they were all scared out of their minds. There's a small jellyfish in the beaches of Australia that's sting is so painful they have to knock the people out in the ER. You'd have to be completely bananas not to fear that. I'm not saying you're not an exceptionally tough or less intimidated individual, they do exist. But like Colonel Flagg on the comedy MASH it makes you look more daffy than brave.

And I've already stated several times it's not the terrorist activities alone of Iran and others that particularly worry me it's the financial impact on an already fragile US economy that a conflict involving oil supplies will have. Market speculators have been jumping from market to market since the credit bubble popped after they lost that easy stream of paper wealth. Major oil shares and reserves would be sat on till the prices peaked before they'd sell causing havoc in everyday life from coast to coast. It would make the rapid climb of gold values look like a Tupperware sale.

Originally Posted by grip

I knew an ex paratrooper who had dropped behind enemy lines several times during WWII. I asked him how he survived and wasn't he scared? He said his fear is what kept him alive.
I also knew a brave Green Beret who served in Vietnam and said they were all scared out of their minds. There's a small jellyfish in the beaches of Australia that's sting is so painful they have to knock the people out in the ER. You'd have to be completely bananas not to fear that. I'm not saying you're not an exceptionally tough or less intimidated individual, they do exist. But like Colonel Flagg on the comedy MASH it makes you look more daffy than brave.

And I've already stated several times it's not the terrorist activities alone of Iran and others that particularly worry me it's the financial impact on an already fragile US economy that a conflict involving oil supplies will have. Market speculators have been jumping from market to market since the credit bubble popped after they lost that easy stream of paper wealth. Major oil shares and reserves would be sat on till the prices peaked before they'd sell causing havoc in everyday life from coast to coast. It would make the rapid climb of gold values look like a Tupperware sale.

Regardless of what Iran might try to do, it is unlikely to have a greater effect than a brief spike in spot oil prices and it will have no effect on consumers and industry in most developed countries. If no oil were being produced anywhere in the world, the global strategic oil reserves would be sufficient to supply the world at its present rate of consumption for 41 days, and of course Iran can only effect some oil shipments in one part of the world and then only briefly. Of the world's 4.1 billion barrel strategic oil reserves, 2.6 billion is held by private industry, so it is unlikely that a brief spike in spot oil prices would have any effect on the cost of goods and services to consumers or to profits enjoyed by businesses. In addition, in an election year when the election will likely be decided largely by economic conditions, it is unlikely Obama would allow even gasoline prices to rise too much before releasing the government's strategic reserves.

It is not even clear that Iran is capable of slowing the rate of oil exports from the Gulf for more than a very short period of time, probably days. With the massive amount of US naval power in the Gulf, any attempt to attack Gulf shipping would be futile and probably result in severe punishment. The threat to block the Straits of Hormuz is likewise an empty bluff. The Iranian navy would be quickly destroyed if it tried to hold positions there and if it sank ships and laid mines, these would be quickly cleared. The world has been preparing for these events for years and Iran would only hurt itself by doing either of these things. Iran's threat to stop exporting oil is also ludicrous. China is the principal buyer of Iranian oil and 80% of China's oil imports come from Iran. If Iran stopped exporting oil, it would mostly harm China, one of the few states still friendly to Iran, and if it stopped exporting only oil not sold to China, it would amount only to a trickle of oil the world would not even notice.

Originally Posted by toomuchtime_

Regardless of what Iran might try to do, it is unlikely to have a greater effect than a brief spike in spot oil prices and it will have no effect on consumers and industry in most developed countries. If no oil were being produced anywhere in the world, the global strategic oil reserves would be sufficient to supply the world at its present rate of consumption for 41 days, and of course Iran can only effect some oil shipments in one part of the world and then only briefly. Of the world's 4.1 billion barrel strategic oil reserves, 2.6 billion is held by private industry, so it is unlikely that a brief spike in spot oil prices would have any effect on the cost of goods and services to consumers or to profits enjoyed by businesses. In addition, in an election year when the election will likely be decided largely by economic conditions, it is unlikely Obama would allow even gasoline prices to rise too much before releasing the government's strategic reserves.

It is not even clear that Iran is capable of slowing the rate of oil exports from the Gulf for more than a very short period of time, probably days. With the massive amount of US naval power in the Gulf, any attempt to attack Gulf shipping would be futile and probably result in severe punishment. The threat to block the Straits of Hormuz is likewise an empty bluff. The Iranian navy would be quickly destroyed if it tried to hold positions there and if it sank ships and laid mines, these would be quickly cleared. The world has been preparing for these events for years and Iran would only hurt itself by doing either of these things. Iran's threat to stop exporting oil is also ludicrous. China is the principal buyer of Iranian oil and 80% of China's oil imports come from Iran. If Iran stopped exporting oil, it would mostly harm China, one of the few states still friendly to Iran, and if it stopped exporting only oil not sold to China, it would amount only to a trickle of oil the world would not even notice.

It's not the actual amount of oil reserves that will be tested it's the oil markets in general. Investors go by momentum when buying and selling and information about possible slow ups in supplies. They're always perched to make a superior profit and will attract other money into their plans. You can side step this reality all you want but even the expert opinions from pundits and government officials recognize this very real possibility. All it would take is a few dozen major suppliers, shippers and pipelines damaged to create an upheaval. The President may institute a form of Marshall Law or moratorium on gas prices but not before it starts coming unglued. I think this because of the sheer influence big intl. money investors and oil companies have in DC. Everyone thinks Iran won't hurt their own oil buyers but if their military assets are decimated like Iraq's were they won't care about their buyers for awhile. If it weren't for such economic weaknesses world wide Israel and the US would've hit Iran's nuke sites a couple years ago. Our economies are so interlinked with China, Europe, Japan, India and many others that one more straw on the camels back might just break it.

If Iran cutoff oil supplies it would probably be only to US allies. That would mean Spain, Greece, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. But the slack could likely be picked by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Libya. Iraq and Libya could likely use new found revenue. In fact, if new channels like this are established, Iran may lose US allied customers permanently. Cutting oil supplies is a risky game for Iran and one they should not start playing.

Found some interesting articles here about the impact of Iran oil sanctions/Iran stopping oil flow:
Michael Levi: Energy, Security, and Climate » Incoherent Thinking About An Iranian Oil Embargo

This prospect has elicited a flood of market impact analyses. The ones I’ve seen are proprietary, so I won’t post or quote them here, but they appear to have one important thing in common. Parts of each analysis look country-by-coutnry to see who is currently most dependent on Iranian oil. They then suggest that those countries are at greatest risk in the event a cutoff. Other parts of each analysis estimate the rise in world prices that sanctions would provoke as a way of explaining how bad the consequences would be.

This is, quite literally, incoherent. To argue that each country will be affected differently depending on its level of imports from Iran, one must conceive of the world oil market as a place where geography matters deeply. This is inconsistent with thinking about a single world price for oil.

Iran faces prospect of EU crude embargo - FT.com

If current clients do not offset the loss of the European market, Tehran could try to look for new buyers – or dust off old ones, such as Pakistan. But the impact of the financial sanctions imposed by Western countries is likely to prevent importers paying for the oil.

Thus, Tehran is unlikely to make up for the loss of the European market, particularly in the short-term, forcing it to either cut production or start storing the crude.

China is in a payment dispute with Iran over Chinese oil purchases. So China is halving it's purchase of Iran oil for January. Iran is playing with the big boys now and starting to see who's boss.
UPDATE 2-China halves Jan Iran oil imports in payment dispute | News by Country | Reuters

BEIJING, Dec 19 (Reuters) - China's top refiner Sinopec Corp will in January buy less than half the crude it typically imports from Iran, trade sources said on Monday, as the two haggle over terms against a backdrop of rising international pressure on Tehran.

Iran's largest crude buyer has cut its January purchases by about 285,000 barrels per day (bpd), sources said. That is over half of the close to 550,000 bpd that China has been buying on annual contract this year.

Originally Posted by EagleAye

If Iran cutoff oil supplies it would probably be only to US

Oil is sold on an international market.