• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

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.
 
Last edited:
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.....
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/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......
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Oil is sold on an international market.

Yes this is true and if someone over here takes more or less it affects someone elsewhere. That's why they talk about oil supply elasticity. They'll break or renegotiate contracts and accept penalties for large enough profits. A lot of big traders use direct market computer trading. It's what caused the "flash crash". When the margin calls come on shares, puts and options the computer programs automatically make sales and purchases. It happens so fast the government couldn't control or undo them all.
 
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 it were anticipated that Iran could effect the flow of oil from the Gulf for a long period of time, it might have some effect on the world economy until oil production in other parts of the world and more efficient use of oil drove prices down again, but there is no reason to believe it would have more than a minimal effect on the economies of any of the developed nations, and since it is anticipated that Iran could only disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for a short period of time and private and public strategic oil reserves are more than sufficient to cover this period, only a foolish investor or speculator would buy oil at temporarily inflated prices, so even if Iran is foolish enough to try to disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf it is unlikely to have much if any economic effect on the world's economies.

Another way to say it is that momentum in markets is created by the anticipation of future events and since it is anticipated that Iran's efforts will be short lived, they will not generate much momentum.
 
If it were anticipated that Iran could effect the flow of oil from the Gulf for a long period of time, it might have some effect on the world economy until oil production in other parts of the world and more efficient use of oil drove prices down again, but there is no reason to believe it would have more than a minimal effect on the economies of any of the developed nations, and since it is anticipated that Iran could only disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for a short period of time and private and public strategic oil reserves are more than sufficient to cover this period, only a foolish investor or speculator would buy oil at temporarily inflated prices, so even if Iran is foolish enough to try to disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf it is unlikely to have much if any economic effect on the world's economies.

Another way to say it is that momentum in markets is created by the anticipation of future events and since it is anticipated that Iran's efforts will be short lived, they will not generate much momentum.

Look at gold and the ridiculous value increase because of monetary fears over stock, bonds and currency devaluations. Markets don't always operate on sound principle because when your real money or personal wealth is involved the emotions take over. I knew a guy who beat the stock market all day long on a simulated program but when trying the real thing he kept flopping. It was told to him by a broker because you can't separate your business mind from your emotions over losing real money. People like Trump can turn it off and on like a light switch that's partially why he's so successful.

It may go as you suggested because there are enough reserves to weather a temp shortage but nobody knows for sure how many different ways something will reach out or escalate. The butterfly flaps its wings in Japan and a hurricane appears over the US, the chaos theory. Experts are wrong many times past and current and sometimes they're right.
 
Look at gold and the ridiculous value increase because of monetary fears over stock, bonds and currency devaluations. Markets don't always operate on sound principle because when your real money or personal wealth is involved the emotions take over. I knew a guy who beat the stock market all day long on a simulated program but when trying the real thing he kept flopping. It was told to him by a broker because you can't separate your business mind from your emotions over losing real money. People like Trump can turn it off and on like a light switch that's partially why he's so successful.

It may go as you suggested because there are enough reserves to weather a temp shortage but nobody knows for sure how many different ways something will reach out or escalate. The butterfly flaps its wings in Japan and a hurricane appears over the US, the chaos theory. Experts are wrong many times past and current and sometimes they're right.

In other words, there's no particular reason to believe that Iranian efforts to disturb the flow of oil from the Gulf would have much if any effect on the world's economies.
 
In other words, there's no particular reason to believe that Iranian efforts to disturb the flow of oil from the Gulf would have much if any effect on the world's economies.

Huh? Are you using the extreme meaning explanation the method everyone resorts to as the last option?
 
Huh? Are you using the extreme meaning explanation the method everyone resorts to as the last option?

I'm using common sense. Since no one expects Iran can disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for more than a short time, public and private strategic reserves are more than adequate to cover that period and the markets will anticipate normal exports from that region in a short time, hence normal prices, there will be little or no effect on the world's economies.
 
I'm using common sense. Since no one expects Iran can disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for more than a short time, public and private strategic reserves are more than adequate to cover that period and the markets will anticipate normal exports from that region in a short time, hence normal prices, there will be little or no effect on the world's economies.

Oh ok, I thought you were trying that ol' baffle them with BS technique. I've had that used on me several times in different ways when someone feels lost on substance. It's funny but annoying, especially when you start to fall for it.

Well, in your support the Saudi's said they could increase production to make up for the 4.25 million barrels a day the Iranians supply the market but they need time. And only six days ago oil rose as much as 3.6 percent during intraday trading from rumors of Iranian military training to cut off the Strait of Hormuz. Here are some of the comments from energy traders. “Crude oil is one of the most susceptible commodities to geopolitical risks and traders will react to anything in the Middle East that has potential to disrupt oil supplies,” said Sal Gilbertie, president of Santa Fe, New Mexico-based Teucrium Trading LLC, a sponsor of exchange-traded funds based on crude and natural gas. “We’re seeing a return of geopolitics to the market,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York- based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “The military exercise in the Strait of Hormuz signals an escalation in tension and has serious implications for the flow of oil.”

And quote from a Reuters article,
And the International Energy Agency, the club of industrialized nations founded after the Arab oil embargo that co-ordinated the release of emergency oil stocks during Libya’s civil war, last week circulated to member countries an updated four-page factsheet detailing Iran’s oil industry and trade.

The document, not made public but obtained by Reuters, lists the vital statistics of Iran’s oil sector, including destinations by country. Two-thirds of its exports are shipped to China, India, Japan and South Korea; a fifth goes to the European Union.

Hedge funds, particularly those with a global macro-economic bias, have taken note, and are buying deep out-of-the-money call options that could pay off big if prices surge, senior market sources at two major banks said.

Markets brace for possible attack on Iran - The Globe and Mail

Now those are comments from market experts who may not understand the situation as well. Here is a quote from several News articles about the new US sanctions bill on Iran, "US officials have also warned that depriving global markets of Iranian exports could send oil prices sharply higher, gifting Tehran a funding boost." So it's not written in stone yet what will happen.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok, I thought you were trying that ol' baffle them with BS technique. I've had that used on me several times in different ways when someone feels lost on substance. It's funny but annoying, especially when you start to fall for it.

Well, in your support the Saudi's said they could increase production to make up for the 4.25 million barrels a day the Iranians supply the market but they need time. And only six days ago oil rose as much as 3.6 percent during intraday trading from rumors of Iranian military training to cut off the Strait of Hormuz. Here are some of the comments from energy traders. “Crude oil is one of the most susceptible commodities to geopolitical risks and traders will react to anything in the Middle East that has potential to disrupt oil supplies,” said Sal Gilbertie, president of Santa Fe, New Mexico-based Teucrium Trading LLC, a sponsor of exchange-traded funds based on crude and natural gas. “We’re seeing a return of geopolitics to the market,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York- based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “The military exercise in the Strait of Hormuz signals an escalation in tension and has serious implications for the flow of oil.”

And quote from a Reuters article,

Markets brace for possible attack on Iran - The Globe and Mail

Now those are comments from market experts who may not understand the situation as well. Here is a quote from several News articles about the new US sanctions bill on Iran, "US officials have also warned that depriving global markets of Iranian exports could send oil prices sharply higher, gifting Tehran a funding boost." So it's not written in stone yet what will happen.

Your argument a few posts ago was not that oil prices may spike but that it would play havoc with the US economy, and I explained to you that since Iran could not disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for more than a short period and public and private strategic oil reserves were more than adequate to wait out that period, Iran's actions will have little or no effect on the US economy. Your present post does not address the the issue of the effect Iran's actions might have on the US economy or on any of the developed economies, for that matter.

The last quote makes no sense. How can Iran get a funding boost from the higher price of oil it is not selling? Clearly, you shouldn't believe everything you read, and clearly, these "US officials" are not among our brightest.
 
Your argument a few posts ago was not that oil prices may spike but that it would play havoc with the US economy, and I explained to you that since Iran could not disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf for more than a short period and public and private strategic oil reserves were more than adequate to wait out that period, Iran's actions will have little or no effect on the US economy. Your present post does not address the the issue of the effect Iran's actions might have on the US economy or on any of the developed economies, for that matter.

The last quote makes no sense. How can Iran get a funding boost from the higher price of oil it is not selling? Clearly, you shouldn't believe everything you read, and clearly, these "US officials" are not among our brightest.

I still believe if the oil speculators cause a run on reserves and shares this will create absorbent gas prices affecting the US economy. I could be wrong but it's a possibility.

And the last quote didn't make sense too me at first. The quote doesn't say oil exports it says Iranian exports period. I didn't think they exported enough of anything else to affect markets, especially oil but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess if the US sanctions block a lot of money trade from Iranian exports that are used to boost economies that purchase oil and any oil price increase would be a gift too them? Hell I don't know still sounds goofy.
 
Last edited:
I still believe if the oil speculators cause a run on reserves and shares this will create absorbent gas prices affecting the US economy. I could be wrong but it's a possibility.

And the last quote didn't make sense too me at first. The quote doesn't say oil exports it says Iranian exports period. I didn't think they exported enough of anything else to affect markets, especially oil but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess if the US sanctions block a lot of money trade from Iranian exports that are used to boost economies that purchase oil and any oil price increase would be a gift too them? Hell I don't know still sounds goofy.

Price increases can effect the economy only if they are sustained over a long period of time. If they are of short duration, they are merely an annoyance. The question is, how can Iran cause a sustained increase in oil prices? If they attack shipping in the Gulf or try to block the Straits of Hormuz, these problems would be quickly disposed of and prices would return to normal. Iran cannot afford to withhold its oil exports for more than a short time without suffering enormous political, diplomatic and economic problems, and if it only withheld its exports to Europe/Japan, US allies, the action would not cause much of a price increase.

In fact, sustained sanctions against countries or companies that bought Iranian oil or that invested in Iran's oil industry would be more likely to produce serious economic problems for the US and other developed countries if they were widely observed because they would cause a longer term decrease in global oil supplies, nd hence higher prices, than any actions Iran might take in response to an attack.
 
Price increases can effect the economy only if they are sustained over a long period of time. If they are of short duration, they are merely an annoyance. The question is, how can Iran cause a sustained increase in oil prices? If they attack shipping in the Gulf or try to block the Straits of Hormuz, these problems would be quickly disposed of and prices would return to normal. Iran cannot afford to withhold its oil exports for more than a short time without suffering enormous political, diplomatic and economic problems, and if it only withheld its exports to Europe/Japan, US allies, the action would not cause much of a price increase.

In fact, sustained sanctions against countries or companies that bought Iranian oil or that invested in Iran's oil industry would be more likely to produce serious economic problems for the US and other developed countries if they were widely observed because they would cause a longer term decrease in global oil supplies, nd hence higher prices, than any actions Iran might take in response to an attack.

And lets not forget, other countries can fill in the gap and supply oil if Iran oil is cutoff due to sanctions or withheld by Iran. I'm sure the Saudis or the Russians wouldn't mind some extra sales. In 2010 Russia became the largest oil producer in the world, but they are still not largest exporter (behind Saudi Arabia).
 
Price increases can effect the economy only if they are sustained over a long period of time. If they are of short duration, they are merely an annoyance. The question is, how can Iran cause a sustained increase in oil prices? If they attack shipping in the Gulf or try to block the Straits of Hormuz, these problems would be quickly disposed of and prices would return to normal. Iran cannot afford to withhold its oil exports for more than a short time without suffering enormous political, diplomatic and economic problems, and if it only withheld its exports to Europe/Japan, US allies, the action would not cause much of a price increase.

In fact, sustained sanctions against countries or companies that bought Iranian oil or that invested in Iran's oil industry would be more likely to produce serious economic problems for the US and other developed countries if they were widely observed because they would cause a longer term decrease in global oil supplies, nd hence higher prices, than any actions Iran might take in response to an attack.

You are starting to use the explanation of extreme scenarios. How did gas prices climb to $4 a gallon and oil at $145 a barrel 3 years ago? Was it a sustained shortage of crude or price gouging? You're argument falls flat when you attempt to keep putting such rational outcomes to people and conflicts that have too many variables. Iran's economy will likely be in shambles if there's an all out attack and response, escalating to regional War. And if it's only a serious air strike at nuke facilities and military infrastructure and Iran has little response, only then is your scenario of "nothing happening" likely. But even the WH, Congress and Pentagon as a whole don't completely believe that in the News articles and op ed pieces I've read. Like I said before the US or Israel would've already hit the Iranian nuke sites if they were such an easy target and expected diminished response, not wait until the 11th hour. The whole area with our Iraq and Afghan Wars, past Israel/Lebanon War and Arab Spring is a powder keg. To keep saying the US is almighty in power and control and clearly nothing outside of our scope will occur or damage us sounds like a fairy tale.
 
You are starting to use the explanation of extreme scenarios. How did gas prices climb to $4 a gallon and oil at $145 a barrel 3 years ago? Was it a sustained shortage of crude or price gouging? You're argument falls flat when you attempt to keep putting such rational outcomes to people and conflicts that have too many variables. Iran's economy will likely be in shambles if there's an all out attack and response, escalating to regional War. And if it's only a serious air strike at nuke facilities and military infrastructure and Iran has little response, only then is your scenario of "nothing happening" likely. But even the WH, Congress and Pentagon as a whole don't completely believe that in the News articles and op ed pieces I've read. Like I said before the US or Israel would've already hit the Iranian nuke sites if they were such an easy target and expected diminished response, not wait until the 11th hour. The whole area with our Iraq and Afghan Wars, past Israel/Lebanon War and Arab Spring is a powder keg. To keep saying the US is almighty in power and control and clearly nothing outside of our scope will occur or damage us sounds like a fairy tale.

The most logical thing to do is to limit attacks on nuclear facilities. That's what I'm expecting, and even there it seems you agree the conflict would be very short. I would be very surprised if attacks were anything beyond surgical strikes.

And the US is waiting until the 11th hour because it would be far better if sanctions and diplomacy turned things around. It's not that the US is fearful or cannot perform the strikes, it's just better to not do them at all if other options will do the same job.
 
The most logical thing to do is to limit attacks on nuclear facilities. That's what I'm expecting, and even there it seems you agree the conflict would be very short. I would be very surprised if attacks were anything beyond surgical strikes.

And the US is waiting until the 11th hour because it would be far better if sanctions and diplomacy turned things around. It's not that the US is fearful or cannot perform the strikes, it's just better to not do them at all if other options will do the same job.

I agree this in my mind is also the most logical thing to do. Like toomuchtime_ said we don't necessarily have the smartest people running the government just the most experienced. The conflict could be very short for us if we strike and protect our assets in the ME but it could become protracted for our allies. I imagine the gov/military have plans for every likely contingency, including financial ramifications.

I've heard many reasons for waiting, including letting sanctions run their course for diplomacy sake to getting our forces out of Iraq. I know we'd like Iran to say "uncle" but they won't, especially with Russia and China giving them the wink, wink. Geopolitical strategies are a chess game of move, counter move and bluff and call, much like poker. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" and I'm afraid it's becoming reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom