Same Question new parameters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bourbon
Ron, Tequila noted the oil factor - I would like to share some of my notes to further sketch out this issue.
1. Saudi Arabia - 264,251
2. Iran - 138,400
3. Iraq - 115,000
4. Kuwait - 101,500
5. United Arab Emirates - 97,800
6.Venezuela - 87,035
(Million Barrels) Source: OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2006
Quote:
This helps to place in perspective some of the concerns out there.
I wonder, in this case (if) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait were to vote together then what would that do. Even more theoretically what if another country were to be brought into OPEC. One with perhaps verrryyy large Reserves?
And then if Iraq actually reached a more stable point where the viable access to more resources gave them a greater share?
Does this point to why it might be so important to Iran to undermine efforts there in any way possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bourbon
Well, it could be part of a reason. But I do not think that they want to undermine our efforts by any way possible. There is evidence that before and for awhile after we went into Iraq, that Iran wanted stability and was willing to help in the reconstruction. Democracy and elections in Iraq could empower the Shia and Iran, so they could have acquired the OPEC vote that way. I imagine if they completely wanted to undermine our efforts by any means, we would see a flood of MANPADS to insurgents - ala what we did to the Soviets.
But you bring up an interesting point about Iraq. Iraq's reserves are understated, its never been adequately explored or developed, there is likely a lot more there. There is a history of suppressing Iraqi oil production; from the “red line agreement” with the partners of the Turkish Petroleum Company in 1928, to post WWII where oil companies deliberately capped production and exploration, to OPEC's creation in 1960, to the industry being crippled in the 1980's Iran-Iraq war, to post war sanctions. A lot of this production and exploration suppression has been deliberate.
So it brings up an interesting angle on why we went into Iraq and what happened when we got there. I think it shows some interesting divisions in the administration, the government, the exiles, and the Iraqi's. Just look at if for example that the oil industry had completely privatized and sold off, an idea championed by some, and blocs were divided up sold off to many different companies. It all gets very interesting and convoluted.
Especially considering current developments in Iraq and:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0305/p09s01-coop.html
Where would this put things currently?
Iran acquires bomb parts from U.S.
Another interesting article on how sosphisticated smugglers use the internet to acquire illicit materials. While nothing new this article is just another example of why the whole of government approach (and it is working to some extent) is essential in our war efforts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28601531/
Quote:
While illegal trafficking in weapons technology has occurred for decades -- most notably in the case of the nuclear smuggling ring operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan -- the new documents suggest that recent trading is nearly all Internet-based and increasingly sophisticated.
Many of the schemes unknowingly involve U.S. companies that typically have no clue where their products are actually going, the records show.
Quote:
"The current system of export controls doesn't do enough to stop illicit trade before the item is shipped," he said. "Having a law on the books is not the same as having a law enforced."
Ten of world's top banks laundered money for Iran
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2009011...undered-m.html
Quote:
New York, Jan.10 (ANI): Ten international banks, including British-based Lloyds laundered "billions of dollars" for Iran through New York banks, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced Friday.
Lloyds admitted it laundered 300 million dollars and agreed to pay a 350 million dollar fine and open its books to investigators.
In the scheme, first disclosed last March by The News, Iran would deposit huge sums in the international banks, which then converted it into dollars and parceled it out under altered names and routing codes. The money was moved through a series of smaller banks and ultimately drawn on for banned purposes.
Much of the money went to Iranian banks, which typically send money to terror groups in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan through front organizations and so-called charities, according to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Iran thirty years after the revolution
Currently being broadcast on BBC2 a three part documentary series on 'Iran and the West', the series are exceptionally well-made and all parties get a chance to be interviewed. The first part reports on the revolution: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hmrvt
Note this is only available for fourteen days.
The second part is tonight and is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ht3p7
One review by The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...West-BBC2.html and one sentence says it all: 'There was simply narrative, as impartial as seemed possible, very tightly told. It was told partly through fascinating archive footage from the time, and partly through the words of the film’s interviewees'.
Another from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/books/displ...ry_id=13055972 and concludes 'Documentary-making at its best'.
davidbfpo
Holocaust Museum in DC for Pres. of Iran
Give the Presiden of Iran free passage to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and let him take pix, that will be fine.
Yep, the Rodney Dangerfield of Nations...
All they want is a little respect; they and the North Koreans.
Unfortunately, like kids and tantrums, they don't realize that excess adverse attention is detrimental to their goals. Or, even more like kids, they realize it but are compelled to do it anyway...
Observing Iran (catch all historical thread)
So ... the most momentous public unrest to hit the Middle East since the "Cedar Revolution" and we have no dedicated discussion thread?
So far, I'm stunned at the remarkable strength and staying power of the demonstrators. This is no movement exclusively of spoiled children of north Tehran or liberal students. This is a mass movement that is maintaining and even growing its strength despite an increasingly violent crackdown.
I'd like to gauge the SWC's opinions on the following:
1) Roots of the uprising? Is this a coup by Ahmadenijad and Khamanei in the form of a clumsily and blatantly rigged election? A fair election?
2) Possible outcomes of either an Ahmadenijad/Khamanei victory in suppressing the protests, a compromise outcome of some sort, or a removal of either Ahmadenijad and Khamanei.
3) U.S. response - should the President and State Department be more vocal, or will doing so only strengthen A/K's hand?
Best news sources I've found thusfar:
Twitter, of course. Nothing like following a possible world-historical event in real time.
As Spencer Ackerman has said, PersianKiwi is probably the world's most important journalist right now.
The NYTIMES has been on the spot with great reporter, including Bill Keller from Isfahan here.
Huffington Post and the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan have excellent Twitter and blog summaries.
The National Iranian American Council blog and Tehran Bureau are must reads as well. Tehran Bureau has a superb article on the political factions in Iran's bureaucracy here.