STORM2K

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10941513/

Something is definitely up

That certainly implies they don't intend to back down.

x-y-no wrote:That certainly implies they don't intend to back down.

Yuppers. Grab the popcorn and coca-cola, because the movie is about to start. If the U.S. gets sanctions what effect will it have, if there are no funds to freeze?

Sanctions are much more than seizing Iranian assets, they are about limiting Iranian trade.

kevin wrote:Sanctions are much more than seizing Iranian assets, they are about limiting Iranian trade.

still won't work.

wxcrazytwo wrote:

kevin wrote:Sanctions are much more than seizing Iranian assets, they are about limiting Iranian trade.

still won't work.

Out of curiosity...how come it wouldn't work?

It's worked with other countries in the past.

Skywatch_NC wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

kevin wrote:Sanctions are much more than seizing Iranian assets, they are about limiting Iranian trade.

still won't work.

Out of curiosity...how come it wouldn't work?

It's worked with other countries in the past.

This isn't your ordinary country Eric. This is a country bent on producing nuclear fuel for what who knows. Sanctions I believe will only invigorate their attempts at making nukes. I just don't see sanctions working.

Only thing out of this story that would catch my eye is if they move their money to China.

Skywatch_NC wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

kevin wrote:Sanctions are much more than seizing Iranian assets, they are about limiting Iranian trade.

still won't work.

Out of curiosity...how come it wouldn't work?

It's worked with other countries in the past.

Shutting down trade with Iran would drive world oil prices way up. There isn't anywhere near the spare production capacity elsewhere to make up for Iran's production.

So it's an empty threat, I'm afraid.

Stratosphere747 wrote:Only thing out of this story that would catch my eye is if they move their money to China.

Indeed. Or Russia.

I'm very, very curious as to just where these assets are being moved.

Shutting down trade with Iran would drive world oil prices way up. There isn't anywhere near the spare production capacity elsewhere to make up for Iran's production.

Jan today Crude Oil has jumped to $68 a barrel and the Iran situation is to blame.

cycloneye wrote:

Shutting down trade with Iran would drive world oil prices way up. There isn't anywhere near the spare production capacity elsewhere to make up for Iran's production.

Jan today Crude Oil has jumped to $68 a barrel and the Iran situation is to blame.

Yeah - and that's just based on nervousness.

If we actually shut down all oil sales from Iran, the price would go well over $100.

x-y-no wrote:

Stratosphere747 wrote:Only thing out of this story that would catch my eye is if they move their money to China.

Indeed. Or Russia.

I'm very, very curious as to just where these assets are being moved.

I just don't see them sending their money to Russia, especially since they have been a bit more vocal than China.

Curious to know how much money it is. You have to figure that it is a substantial amount.

If oil does jump, I think in the face of Katrina, AMERICANS are willing to pay the piper.

Stratosphere747 wrote:
I just don't see them sending their money to Russia, especially since they have been a bit more vocal than China.

Curious to know how much money it is. You have to figure that it is a substantial amount.

The article said $36 billion, IIRC.

EDIT:

I'd note that Iran probably has a lot more assets in foreign lands than just this cash. So doing this doesn't remove the threat involved in freezing their assets.

I've read a few reports that if Iran did shut down their exports AND Iraq was stabilized, that Iraq could make up anywhere from 25 to 60 percent of the shortage.

I would go with the low end of that figure, and though not enough to ease the shortage, its a start.

We produce almost as much oil daily as Saudi Arabia. Our consumption is what nails us. Just a little common sense and smarts would eliminate the need for so much overseas oil without killing the economy.

Iran is forcing the hand of the US Iran has the oil card to play.They just might go as far as shutting off the spigets.I don't see this ending in any other way but military confrontation barring a last minute back down by iran. Folks,we are on the brink of some rough times

Stratosphere747 wrote:I've read a few reports that if Iran did shut down their exports AND Iraq was stabilized, that Iraq could make up anywhere from 25 to 60 percent of the shortage.

I would go with the low end of that figure, and though not enough to ease the shortage, its a start.

I don't understand how one could reasonably think that Iraq would become more stable in light of sanctions against Iran. I'd expect the opposite, given how much influence Iran has among the major Shi'a groups in Iraq.

We produce almost as much oil daily as Saudi Arabia. Our consumption is what nails us. Just a little common sense and smarts would eliminate the need for so much overseas oil without killing the economy.

No argument there. I've been an advocate of energy independence by multiple means (renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and improved efficiency of the auto and truck fleets) since the oil crises of the 70's.

Any economically feasable transition to effective independence will take a couple of decades, though. We don't want to destroy the economy in order to save it.

x-y-no wrote:

Stratosphere747 wrote:I've read a few reports that if Iran did shut down their exports AND Iraq was stabilized, that Iraq could make up anywhere from 25 to 60 percent of the shortage.

I would go with the low end of that figure, and though not enough to ease the shortage, its a start.

I don't understand how one could reasonably think that Iraq would become more stable in light of sanctions against Iran. I'd expect the opposite, given how much influence Iran has among the major Shi'a groups in Iraq.

We produce almost as much oil daily as Saudi Arabia. Our consumption is what nails us. Just a little common sense and smarts would eliminate the need for so much overseas oil without killing the economy.

No argument there. I've been an advocate of energy independence by multiple means (renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and improved efficiency of the auto and truck fleets) since the oil crises of the 70's.

Any economically feasable transition to effective independence will take a couple of decades, though. We don't want to destroy the economy in order to save it.

I agree with you about the Iraqi situation, hence the AND. Doubt anytime soon that they will be stable, though the idea from the Bush administration was we would be far beyond being stable in Iraq by now. That's another story...

I do think we could make the transition on consumption much quicker than some think. The problem is that neither party will want to make a true push for it, for fear of the backlash.

So oil is 68 dollars right now, how much was it after Katrina? Would it hiting 100 dollars kill our economy. In which doing so would destroy the globale Economy. If they get nukes it is not going to be good maybe WWIII.