Thread Tools

Display Modes

**Snowolf** · 06-30-2008, 06:25 AM

Things appear to be heating up fast once again with regard to Iran. Israel seems convinced that Iran`s nuclear ambitions are not for peaceful purposes and this sentiment seems to be strongly held by the Bush administration. The rhetoric has ratcheted up significantly in the last week and many sources within Israel say it`s a matter of when, not if. The best guest according to defense experts is sometime before the November U.S. election or shortly thereafter. The strategy for Israel is that this will be a crucial window where they can count on U.S. support from the Bush administration as well as Congress and both candidates. The pressure will be to present the image that each candidate is "tougher on Terror" than the other. What still remains in question is what extend, if any, the U.S. will become involved "hands on" with any attack.

Regardless of who, when or why, OPEC minsters predict or perhaps "threaten" is a better word that world oil prices will surge to $400 a barrel. Translated, that equals about $15 U.S a gallon at the pump for refined gasoline; possibly more as the US dollar keeps dropping in value. The impacts of this on not just America, but on world energy prices, have economists alarmed over the real possibility of a severe global economic depression unlike anything the world has seen. Already, the world markets are tanking as a result of the recent record high of $141 a Barrel on Friday. Every exchange across the globe lost double digit values by closing on Friday.

San Francisco Sentinel

Quote:

HOW WILL U.S. REACT IF ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN
27 June 2008

The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, like these F-14B Tomcats, means that Israel would
require a U.S. green light to fly in and attack Iran

BY RON KAMPEAS
As the question of an Israeli attack on Iran edges from if toward when, a new question looms: What would the United States do?
The question is preoccupying not just the White House but the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, although neither would address the matter on the record.
A number of neoconservatives in Washington, known for their closeness to the Israeli defense establishment, now predict that Israel may strike between the election in November and the inauguration of the next president on Jan. 21, if only because that’s a time when Israel can count on U.S. support.
“Israel would be unlikely to do it before the U.S. election,” said John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is close to the pro-Israel community in the capital. “But after the election and before the inauguration would be a window.”
Israeli officials will not name a date, but some have grown more pronounced in recent weeks about the increased prospect of a strike should Iran develop nuclear weapons capability.
“A year from now Iran will be very, very close to the completion of its first nuclear bomb,” Ephraim Sneh, a member of Israel’s ruling coalition, said earlier this month at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. “I may predict that there is — will be no government in Jerusalem which would allow it to happen.”
Asked to predict what the buzz would be at the May 2009 AIPAC policy conference, Sneh said, “If we are alone we will have to act alone. This will be the subject of May ’09.”
Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli transportation minister, said this month that an attack would be “unavoidable” if Iran had the bomb. As Mofaz also is the top Israeli negotiator in the U.S.-Israeli strategic dialogue, his remark suggested that he is confident of U.S. support for an Israeli attack.
Bolton says that is not an unreasonable conclusion with the current administration.
“From past policies, they know that Bush holds a favorable view of Israel’s right to self defense,” Bolton said of Israeli officials.
Israel’s closeness to Bush has led Bolton and fellow neoncons such as William Kristol to predict that Israel may time its strike before Inauguration Day on Jan. 21, 2009, particularly if U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the putative Democratic nominee, wins the presidency.
“The thing that makes an Israeli strike more likely is when any U.S. politician gets up and says Iran can be contained,” said Michael Rubin, a colleague of Bolton’s at the American Enterprise Institute and an alumnus of the Bush administration’s Pentagon policy unit on Iran.
Obama argues for tough diplomacy with Iran — carrots of engagement backed up by sticks of increased sanctions — and insists that such diplomacy may yet contain the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Even in the case of a victory by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has adopted a posture on Iran closer to that of the Bush administration, Israel is likelier to trust the backing of the Bush administration in case of a strike, Bolton said.

Full story: Source

New York Times Story

Quote:

OPEC president predicts oil price at level of $400 per barrel

Baku, Fineko/abc.az. Yesterday the price of oil per barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange exceeded $140 and reached $140.39 per barrel at the moment of closing of bids.
Khabib Khalil, the president of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, stated in this connection that before the end of the summer the oil price can grow up to $170 per barrel in case the European Central Bank increases the rate.
“Price of oil, gold and other primary goods rose after American Federal Reserve System stopped increasing its rate. Dollar fall under such conditions leads to rise in prices for raw materials at the market. Moreover, in the future oil price can jump up to $200 and even up to $400 per barrel if political crisis with Iran leads to stoppage of oil production in this country,” Khalil said.
Recently the European Union has toughened sanctions against Iran because of suspicion of military purposefulness of its nuclear program.
Against the background of the latest events US Congress’s attempts to investigate wildcatters’ intrigues in growth of oil prices are going to become inefficient as well as Saudi Arabia’s investments ($1 bn) in the fund of oil price growth compensation.

Source

Details reported in Bloomberg

So, whether you agree or disagree with attacking Iran, one thing is clear, the American and indeed the world`s middle class is totaly fucked. Regardless of what happens, it looks like $5.00 to $10.00 a gallon gas is here to stay and you are already starting to feel the effects even if you don`t drive. Food and every other comodity is up, taxes will have to go up to maintain current levels of services such as police and fire due to higher fuel costs. Even the power companies are hiking electricity rates as fuel surcharges for their operations. One thing to me is clear and that our way of life is about to drastically and irrevocably change.

PaoloSmythe · 06-30-2008, 06:51 AM

even if the iranian ambition with regard to developing nuclear industry, was towards the production of something which might threaten its neighbours..... it is well known that any such capability is several years away (and thus much monitoring) and so any time line within that period is in itself, offensive.

if the thought is that israeli action would test the resolve of american 'wouldbe leaders' to fight against terror, then surely by invoking the strategy of pre-emption, these israeli exercises are justification enuff for us to move AGAINST israel are they not?

the facts:

- the israelis are rehearsing conflict sortees which have the capability to utilise WMDs against a foreign state.
- such a state has been suggested (anonymously such is its credability) to be iran.
- iran has been identified on the basis of their nuclear program, which in itself is no actual threat of any kind
- israel is acting in a destabilising and terroristic manner (terrorism meaning: the use of violence to achieve politically motivated aims)

conclusion - the US hasn't capability to win its current quagmire, without entering into a new arena. it will have no stomach for such a move by israel. and it is debatable as to whether israel has a stomach for anything more than sabre rattling.

tanks versus kids is something far removed from international conflict;

Press TV - 'Iran missiles target Israeli nukes'

Perpetual3am · 06-30-2008, 04:07 PM

I love the irony, Israel has always denied they have nukes, yet there is a lot of evidence out there that says they already have that capability. Iran doesn't have nukes, yet could one day in the future, so we better attack them. Funny thing is if I ran Iran, I would want nukes since I have crazies like the IDF and US making threats every single year.

The US will not back Israel, simply because they don't have the resources to fight a war of that scale now or anytime in the coming years. And hell, the IDF are at peace with Hamas for the time being, maybe they just want to make sure they always have a conflict ready in case boring peace breaks out.

**Snowolf** · 06-30-2008, 05:56 PM

If anything does happen, in a way it would be better if Israel did it. If the US did it, Bush would no doubt fuck it up badly and do a "shock an awe" bullshit and take out civilian infrastructure and not get the nuke facilities. My thinking is that Israel would likely target and destroy the actual facility without a lot of collateral damage.

PaoloSmythe · 07-01-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

If anything does happen, in a way it would be better if Israel did it.

you have to be joking. it would be better if nobody did anything.

Quote:

My thinking is that Israel would likely target and destroy the actual facility without a lot of collateral damage.

again, considering past performances; you have to be joking.

america cannot get involved due to current limitations on will and resources and in any event, what is there to profit from?

**Snowolf** · 07-01-2008, 06:37 AM

Oh, you will get no argument from me for I am relatively certain than Iran`s nuclear ambition is for power production and this is just another step in the PNAC agenda anyway. Yes it would be better if no one did it.

What I was getting at though is if something "must" be attacked, I think that Israel would most likely do a very surgical strike at an isolated facility like they did in Iraq when the took out a nuclear plant in the late 1980`s. If you let the chimp do it, he will fuck it up no doubt and with the war mongers in his administration whispering their poison into his ears like Wormtongue, he will likely do another "shock and Awe" bullshit destroying massive amounts of civillian infrastructure and show a total disregard for civilian life.

PaoloSmythe · 07-01-2008, 08:41 AM

if any nation in this world is so hell bent trigger happy, as to want to make hay from firing off things that go bang....

please someone direct them towards the neighbourhood of zimbabwe; coz right now, no one in this world is doing anything to prevent Mugabe and his regime from killing and torturing (even babies!)

mpdsnowman · 07-01-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

The US will not back Israel, simply because they don't have the resources to fight a war of that scale now or anytime in the coming years.

I dont think Israel needs our backing on this one. They certainly are capable within themselves to launch an offensive against Iran.

I dont think its a bad idea to monitor them. I still feel they are using that tech for domestic with the fun threat looming out there. I mean let people think what they want theory. And I really dont see gas at 10-15 per gallon. Today the auto industry announced their plummeting sales. only 12 % of all mfg cars get over 25 mpg. SUV's forget it they are done for now.

Its only a matter of time before the saudis and our govt who control the market costing will be forced to say enough is enough and pricing will come down. Its the nature of supply and demand. Right now demand is being heavily curbed by the middle and lower classes. I see it on the highway every day. Although europe sees higher gas pricing going way back. They dont drive like americans do. We love big cars and drive long distances. Our public transportation is adequate in certain areas.

PaoloSmythe · 07-02-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpdsnowman

I dont think Israel needs our backing on this one. They certainly are capable within themselves to launch an offensive against Iran.

anyone can throw a punch, but do they have the capacity to defend against the counter strike? iran has more than a few kids throwing rocks. the IDF will need more than a dozen bulldozers!

Quote:

Today the auto industry announced their plummeting sales. only 12 % of all mfg cars get over 25 mpg. SUV's forget it they are done for now.

but is this directly due to oil costs, or a general down turn in all sectors? are any markets reporting growth (other than repossession and bankruptcy industries)?

Quote:

Although europe sees higher gas pricing going way back. They dont drive like americans do. We love big cars and drive long distances. Our public transportation is adequate in certain areas.

i think to compare you and us, you might wish to consider 'cause and effect'. europe, the home of porsche, ferrari, lamborghini, koenigsegg, tvr, bentley, rolls royce etc is not in any way traditionally concerned by miles per gallon performances.

you might have to consol yourselves in that you had it 'too good for too long'.

mpdsnowman · 07-02-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaoloSmythe

anyone can throw a punch, but do they have the capacity to defend against the counter strike? iran has more than a few kids throwing rocks. the IDF will need more than a dozen bulldozers!

I would like to think that Isreal would defend against a counter strike as well as anyone in that area could. Im not saying Iran is incapable as much as I say Isreal is so..(dont forget who trained them)

Quote:

but is this directly due to oil costs, or a general down turn in all sectors? are any markets reporting growth (other than repossession and bankruptcy industries)?

Yes this is due to oil costs. People loved buying those things because it represented a status..a status minus the hurt at the pump. Americans react and since gas has gone over 2 bucks the suv started to look well..a little overkill. Heck the only ones left driving were the wives of the husbands who want that status..But wives are frugal and yes suv sales are out as a result of the pump.

Quote:

i think to compare you and us, you might wish to consider 'cause and effect'. europe, the home of porsche, ferrari, lamborghini, koenigsegg, tvr, bentley, rolls royce etc is not in any way traditionally concerned by miles per gallon performances.

True but europeans dont have the mielage of driving us Americans do. Dont many of you drive smaller cars as normal transportation?? can u say "yugo"

Quote:

you might have to consol yourselves in that you had it 'too good for too long'.

I agree fully here. I tell people all the time u have been paying six bucks for awhile now