Defiant Iran threatens to use oil weapon against the West

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armchair_jihad, Aug 7, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes! Crusader Alliance is Go!

  2. No keep it on track so all new equipment is in place

  3. Yes and bring the Russians and Chinese in to Share

  4. No the letter writing campaign may work

  5. We dont go looking for trouble but hey they are really asking for it.

  6. But what about the human sheild of Guardian readers

  7. Let Jeremy Clarkson decide

  1. IRAN yesterday rejected a United Nations demand that it halt uranium enrichment work, vowing instead to expand its controversial nuclear programme and threatening to block oil exports to the West if sanctions are imposed.

    “We do not want to use the oil weapon. Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold. We do not want that,” he said.

    Experts are divided over whether Iran would carry out its threat to withhold oil sales as a political weapon. The dispute with Iran is already responsible for pushing crude oil prices up to record levels.

    As Iran is the fourth largest Opec exporter, a freeze on oil sales could push up prices even further and could trigger an energy crisis.

    The price of oil could surge above $200 a barrel if the West’s dispute with Iran escalates into full-scale war, a senior Saudi Arabian diplomat said

    Iran would, however, also suffer greatly.

    Oil accounts for 80 per cent of the country’s export earnings and the local economy would collapse if crude exports were halted indefinitely.

    Article in full,,3-2301870,00.html
  2. I thiink we hould call Irans bluff, we cannot be dependant on oil forever, espeicially as most of the worlds oil is in countries run by nutters.

    We will always adapt, and an oil shortage would be the kick up the arrse to start doing so.
  3. Back down now because they have oil and it will be even harder to stand up to them later when they have oil and nukes.
  4. One can regard present war in Lebanon as a repetition of a war with Iran. USA is much more powerfull than Israel but Iran is much more powerfull than Hezbollah. In the case of American boimbings (ground operation would be a disaster for American troops) Israel would be hit no doubt. Also big American military objects would be easy targets for Iranian missiles. And as we see now "Patriot" is useless against them.

    The final balanse would be highly unprofitable for USA.

    As for nutters in power in oil-rich countries then Russian nutters would be glad to make huge profits from American experiments. Big money in hands of nutters are big money anyway.
  5. But if the US decides that Iran with Nukes is unacceptable, and it has, could the US Air Force degrade Iran to a level that may prompt a Iranian led coup? I don't think it will be boots on the ground but it could be everything else.
  6. I just feel that the USA feels that Iran having oil in its present form is just unacceptable, especially when that oil is sold to rivals like China and India.

    A US aided coup would not work - every Iranian and their donkey remembers Mossadeq, that's why the real Iranian opposition keeps on telling the US to 'PLEASE, STAY THE F.UCK AWAY'
  7. Previously USA had to accept nuclear Soviet Union, nuclear China, in fact accepted nucler N.Korea. Pakistan is nuclear power and who can guarantee that current pro-American dictatorship is forever?

    So it would not be a tragedy to accept even nuclear Iran. USA is unable to prevent this development and no country is able. It is a reality.
  8. Castlereagh yep I agree it won't work but will they try it any way?
  9. I doubt. Iraq is a real test of American abilities. Really they are quite bounded.
  10. But Sergy never ever underestimate American Optimism!

    May be it didn't work in Iraq, that does not mean that it won't work in Iran!

    Iraq didn't work becasue the Army was forced to fight gloves on etc.
  11. To paraphrase that other realist Colin Powell, the 'f.uckin' crazies' may attack Iran but what would be the point? It would only strengthen the hardliners in Iran, Khomieni and the Guardian council would have to react. Ahmadinejad is just a blowhard, Khomeini as I see it is the real danger.

    Containment was good enough for nuclear China and the USSR and I think many in Washington are coming to the realisation that this may be the only viable prospect in regards to Iran.
  12. Bring it on... I've had enough of this oil business. Bomb their Nuke plant, bomb their refineries and stay off the ground, that'll teach the buggers. Open the coal faces up around the globe and stick all the asylum seekers down there (unless locals want the jobs)... let oil prices rise... it's about bloody time that the world became energy efficient.

    I wouldn't mind so much if the loon that's the President hadn't denied that the Hollocaust happened or stated that the solution to the middle east crisis was for Israel to be destroyed... but the continual provocation has worked so sod em'.

    (I know that I'd have completely the opposite opinion if it were the other way round... with Europe getting attacked and us provoking the Iranian super power etc... but at the end of the day it's not like that... the rules are: he with the money and armies wins... unless it can be resolved in the UN... and if you say sod'ya to the UN... it's back to the old rules)
  13. But they are not the only Anti "West" member of OPEC, we would be seriously fecked if OPEc repeated what they did last time.
  14. Do them all fcuk it, lets get it over with