PDA

View Full Version : British Ambassador expelled from Tehran



snapper
28 Nov 11,, 20:32
'Regret' as UK ambassador expelled from Iran - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/regret-as-uk-ambassador-expelled-from-iran-6269077.html)

Good to know I'm not the only one!:Dancing-Banana:

Doktor
28 Nov 11,, 21:08
No you can sing "It takes two babe..."

Mihais
28 Nov 11,, 22:49
I'll put differently.You're so important they threw you out first.

S2
29 Nov 11,, 02:36
What happened with you in Iran and why?

Doktor
29 Nov 11,, 13:13
Iranian students storm British embassy in Tehran

Students clash with riot police after London backs harsher US sanctions against Iran

Dozens of Iranian students have stormed the British embassy in Tehran, bringing down the British flag and throwing documents from windows.

The students clashed with riot police, chanting: "The embassy of Britain should be taken over!" and "Death to England!"

The incident comes two days after the Iranian parliament approved a bill that reduces diplomatic relations with Britain in protest at London's support of US sanctions on Tehran, which Washington recently stiffened

Iranian students storm British embassy in Tehran | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/iranian-students-storm-british-embassy)

Aryajet
29 Nov 11,, 18:06
Iranian students storm British embassy in Tehran

Students clash with riot police after London backs harsher US sanctions against Iran

Dozens of Iranian students have stormed the British embassy in Tehran, bringing down the British flag and throwing documents from windows.

The students clashed with riot police, chanting: "The embassy of Britain should be taken over!" and "Death to England!"

The incident comes two days after the Iranian parliament approved a bill that reduces diplomatic relations with Britain in protest at London's support of US sanctions on Tehran, which Washington recently stiffened

Iranian students storm British embassy in Tehran | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/iranian-students-storm-british-embassy)

They probably have a massive cache of "Death" stacked some where, other wise they should've ran out of it by now.

Dreadnought
30 Nov 11,, 17:28
<Would have set the scuttling charges and bolted out the back, give assahola my regards!:whome:

dave lukins
30 Nov 11,, 21:09
As per the script, the UK has given the Iranians 48hrs to quit their Embassy and hightail it out of here. ;)

Aryajet
01 Dec 11,, 05:13
As per the script, the UK has given the Iranians 48hrs to quit their Embassy and hightail it out of here. ;)
That is it?
Sorry Mr. Lunkins I don't think it will suffice and I believe your government is partly culprit in this lawlessness.
Back then city of Basra being under British forces control, ended up being the safe haven for Moqtada Al Sadr and IRGC's Badr brigade operatives while British government chided US forces for the massive surge against insurgency in Iraq.

In spring of 2007 British Navy sailors were illegally captured in international waters (proven by coordinate presented and publicly televised by British gov. that indeed sailors were in international waters) and kept as hostage for 13 days, while humiliating and rallying them on international TV and changing their attire to civilian clothing and accepting "gifts" from Dinnerjackets British gov. expressed satisfaction for them being released and back home safe.

The British gov. should've done and aftermath of embassy takeover should do something for IRI to take note. Otherwise it will continue.

snapper
01 Dec 11,, 05:52
Of course such a policy might be wiser if backed by credible force. Sadly any and all 'Defence Reviews' here over the last 30 yrs are just a form of 'death by a 1000 cuts'. It is now confirmed that of the two new carriers HMS QE is unlikely to be ready for service before 2030 and HMS PoW will be mothballed. Pig disgusting.

vsdoc
01 Dec 11,, 07:05
I'm a little confused here. If Britain is part of the NATO, and NATO carries out military operations collectively under one banner, is there some sort of "sharing" formula with respect to the resources deployed and the spoils won? My point is, does the storming of the British embassy not require concerted action by other NATO members as well automatically? Both diplomatically as well as militarily if need be? Or is it an organization of consensus of convenience only? If the British carriers are not available, call in the French, the Americans .....

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 08:41
I'm a little confused here. If Britain is part of the NATO, and NATO carries out military operations collectively under one banner, is there some sort of "sharing" formula with respect to the resources deployed and the spoils won? My point is, does the storming of the British embassy not require concerted action by other NATO members as well automatically? Both diplomatically as well as militarily if need be? Or is it an organization of consensus of convenience only? If the British carriers are not available, call in the French, the Americans .....

From Washington Treaty (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty)


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

vsdoc
01 Dec 11,, 08:48
So a NATO embassy stormed that is not in either Europe or North America needs to be taken up individually by the member country?

As per rules of diplomacy/war that I read somewhere, the premises of an embassy constitute part of the sovereign land of the nation in the host country. For example, like an aircraft carrier at deep sea.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 08:53
It is covered in 1963 in Vienna:
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations)


Full text:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf

As for your comment... The US didn't go full scale in 1979, why would UK do it now?

snapper
01 Dec 11,, 08:59
Les Frogs origionaly were origionaly supposed to have a new carries (of the same Class) too but their demands for specification changes both on a trivial and major level: They wanted steam catapults and we didn't; they need fancy nosheries and garlic storage facilities and we don't etc etc etc meant their one carrier would be extra expensive so they backed out.

vsdoc
01 Dec 11,, 09:00
Doktor you are not answering my question pointing to the NATO in particular.

I am aware of consular conventions in general.

Between the countries in question, they apply whether you are part of the NATO (or any other multi-nation treaty or organization) or not.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 09:06
The duty of the Iranians is to guard the Embassy, for which they failed. I am not sure if this automatically calls for military intervention on the country.

Otherwise Greece should have been bombed to ashes with the frequency their students and anarchists attack US and UK embassies in Athens :tongue:

vsdoc
01 Dec 11,, 09:25
Greece is a NATO country Doktor.

Mihais
01 Dec 11,, 09:32
Throwing rocks is vandalism.Entering the compound is violation of national territory.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 09:52
Greece is a NATO country Doktor.

I know. But if students attacking embassies is reason to attack any country...

As I said in 1979 US didn't think it is enough for war with 52 of their citizens kidnapped for 444 days, why would it be now for UK?

tankie
01 Dec 11,, 11:46
Throwing rocks is vandalism.Entering the compound is violation of national territory.

It can and should be construed as an act of war , but if I am correct that is if the intruders are acting on orders from Govt / not vandalism which the said nation has an obligation to control , there lays a greyish area .

snapper
01 Dec 11,, 13:30
I think the Honourable tankie is correct. Unless you prove Government involvement it cannot be construed as an 'invasion' per se. Even then you retain your right to class this as 'act of war' which means the interpretation is largely upto willingness and capability to respond. It would seem that we (and others) are not yet at this stage. Wait until the Afghan draw down is done and maybe we would see things differently.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 13:40
Tell me how is this worse scenario then US embassy in 1979?

Mihais
01 Dec 11,, 13:49
It's better since there are no hostages.Otherwise it's the same crap.
What's worse now is that there is a more serious crisis going on in Iranian-Western relation.Back then the angry youths may have had a cause.Now it's raising the bar and an escalation of the crisis.If reprisals come,the regime wins by rallying the nation.If they get away with attacking embassies,they get a boost in morale anyway.

Either way,the cards UK helds are crap.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 13:51
It's better since there are no hostages.Otherwise it's the same crap.
What's worse now is that there is a more serious crisis going on in Iranian-Western relation.Back then the angry youths may have had a cause.Now it's raising the bar and an escalation of the crisis.If reprisals come,the regime wins by rallying the nation.If they get away with attacking embassies,they get a boost in morale anyway.

Either way,the cards UK helds are crap.

Totally agree.

So, USA had better cards to attack Iran, but they didn't. Why?

Or to put it in other words... Besides UK alone is not able to send troops to Iran, why would they escalate this any further?

Mihais
01 Dec 11,, 13:53
They did,via Saddam.

Doktor
01 Dec 11,, 14:00
I meant in the open ;)

Tho I think if that crisis was to last a bit longer Reagan would have ended it in a different manner then Carter.

dave lukins
01 Dec 11,, 14:42
In spring of 2007 British Navy sailors were illegally captured in international waters (proven by coordinate presented and publicly televised by British gov. that indeed sailors were in international waters) and kept as hostage for 13 days, while humiliating and rallying them on international TV and changing their attire to civilian clothing and accepting "gifts" from Dinnerjackets British gov. expressed satisfaction for them being released and back home safe.

I can assure you if I was on that craft there would have been no surrender and no changing of clothes. :mad: The 'prisoners' from that episode insist they were in Iraqi waters and that is their belief to this day.


"It was reported that the CTF158, Cdre Lambert, requested advice from the Ministry of Defence but was told to hold fire. British Prime Minister Tony Blair later said the attitude of the British forces had been "entirely sensible"; if they had fired there would "undoubtedly have been severe loss of life".

Some of us may not have quite heard that Order due to 'bad comms' at the time ;)

tankie
01 Dec 11,, 15:46
UK alone is not able to send troops to Iran


We got nooks baby ,ooooooooooh yes , :biggrin:

Aryajet
01 Dec 11,, 17:09
It can and should be construed as an act of war , but if I am correct that is if the intruders are acting on orders from Govt / not vandalism which the said nation has an obligation to control , there lays a greyish area .
In case of Islamic Republic there are 2 governments. The one who we know and see in the media is just for inking treaties, contract and rest of the administrative paper work.
The real power reside among the supreme leader, advisers, specialized operatives and his gang of 200,000 thugs, they are the group who committed this crime under direct order form the S.L himself.

The reason I emphasize on his involvement is that these thugs have absolute obedience toward S.L and all he needed to do was just pick up the phone and order them to stop the insanity and get out of there asap, that is if he did not agree with the so called students. If he had done this there would not be any need for riot and/or diplomatic police.

Heck if he did not want it there wouldn't even be an attempt.

JAD_333
01 Dec 11,, 17:32
Related? Complicating?

Lebanon: Rockets prompt Israel response - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lebanon-rockets-prompt-israel-response-6269721.html)

JAD_333
01 Dec 11,, 17:51
Totally agree.

So, USA had better cards to attack Iran, but they didn't. Why?

Jimmy Carter.



Or to put it in other words... Besides UK alone is not able to send troops to Iran, why would they escalate this any further?

You already have action and reaction. UK sanctions Iran central bank. This seriously threatens Iran's economy. Iran reacts by lashing out at nearest and easiest UK target...sovereign embassy ground. Then expels UK ambassador. UK expels Iranian ambassador. Next move? EU pulls ambassadors. Then we see.

Meanwhile, a bill is speeding through Congress for US to also sanction Iran's central bank. EU central banks all follow suit. This is maximum economic pressure that can be applied to Iran, short of a land, air and sea blockade. Buyers of Iranian oil cannot complete transactions. Hard times for Iranian people coming. Iranian people pressure government. Iran offers new measures to ensure compliance with NPT? That's the hope.

dave lukins
01 Dec 11,, 19:51
Buyers of Iranian oil cannot complete transactions. Hard times for Iranian people coming. Iranian people pressure government. Iran offers new measures to ensure compliance with NPT? That's the hope.

Methinks oil embargo will be next on the cards but how will this effect the prices? It is already sky high so many will not see this as a good move.

YellowFever
01 Dec 11,, 20:31
Related? Complicating?

Lebanon: Rockets prompt Israel response - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lebanon-rockets-prompt-israel-response-6269721.html)

Most likely related.

Looks like Iran has reached into it's bag of tricks and is pulling every string it knows how.

The question is, will the West let them get away with it.....again.

Mihais
01 Dec 11,, 21:45
Problem is sanctions cannot go forever.Iran is a bigger oil producer than Iraq and the economic circumstances are also different fom the 90's,for the worse.Iran knows this,we know this.The rest of OPEC may increase production to keep the price in check,but prices will follow panic.Right now the global economy is staring in the abyss and a spike in oil prices,particularly in winter,may give it the push.
Long term this may be the better choice,but there are a lot of elections in 2012.And to call the spade by its name,the voting crowd is mostly represented by those we treat here as chewing toys,as elitistic as it may sound.

JAD_333
02 Dec 11,, 01:18
Methinks oil embargo will be next on the cards but how will this effect the prices? It is already sky high so many will not see this as a good move.

Yeah but if you mean an embargo by the importers, e.g. EU countries, that would amount to only 445M BBLS a day, roughly a fifth of Iran's daily export flow. The Saudis can cover that amount without breaking a sweat. So could the US. In fact the Saudis could cover all of Iran's daily export flow of about 2.5M BBLs/day, for a while at least. Prices were mixed today; some up, some down.

JAD_333
02 Dec 11,, 01:28
Most likely related.

Looks like Iran has reached into it's bag of tricks and is pulling every string it knows how.

The question is, will the West let them get away with it.....again.

It all depends on what you mean by getting away with it. Those who think we should act militarily may think so. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Iran is being squeezed and squeezed little by little. Either they say enough and start dealing seriously or something will finally pop, most likely internally.

vsdoc
02 Dec 11,, 06:19
You already have action and reaction. UK sanctions Iran central bank. This seriously threatens Iran's economy. Iran reacts by lashing out at nearest and easiest UK target...sovereign embassy ground. Then expels UK ambassador. UK expels Iranian ambassador. Next move? EU pulls ambassadors. Then we see.

Meanwhile, a bill is speeding through Congress for US to also sanction Iran's central bank. EU central banks all follow suit. This is maximum economic pressure that can be applied to Iran, short of a land, air and sea blockade. Buyers of Iranian oil cannot complete transactions. Hard times for Iranian people coming. Iranian people pressure government. Iran offers new measures to ensure compliance with NPT? That's the hope.

Jad we did touch on this in the other big (closed) thread. On why sanctions against Iran will not work, cannot work. There are workarounds which will be found. Are being found. By countries who need what Iran has. Or countries who have what Iran needs. Both ways. And were you to keep tightening the noose, as is being seen currently, there will be increasing resistance from certain quarters who think such unjustified and are being increasingly vocal and assertive about it.

Till it will reach a breaking point, at which point the sanctions will be defied. Openly. The something that will pop will more likely be external than internal. Were that to happen, you have pushed beyond the point of no return. And the sanctions lose their sting for good as the world polarises and the choice then is either to fight it or to be left out. To no consequence. Western sactions play into the mullah strategem, and give the theocracy the veneer of righteousness.

vsdoc
02 Dec 11,, 06:57
On the issue of impending gas sanctions and the Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act now .....

"Advocates of sanctions argue that now is the perfect time to pursue a new round. Iran's economy is weak and its leadership is in crisis. According to an Asian Times article, this is the reason Congress and the Israel lobby has been pressing sanctions.

This is the weakest part of the argument for gas sanctions. If Iran’s economy starts to slow down because of sanctions imposed by the US, it seems more likely that people in Iran would blame the US than Ahmadinejad. In the past, US sanctions and threats of military strikes have helped Ahmadinejad consolidate power. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Hossein Askari and Trita Parsi argue that proposed gas sanctions are likely to have the same effect:

If the back of the Iranian economy is broken, the first casualty will be hope. Economic misery will kill people’s faith in a better future. The result will be political apathy. And rather than blaming Mr. Ahmadinejad, Iranians are likely to blame the United States.

Moreover, Iran’s ruling hard-liners are in disarray. The politics of fear is their bread and butter; they have long benefited from invoking foreign plots and Washington’s discredited regime-change policy. But now — with President Obama’s new outreach to Iran — the hard-liners have lost their 9/11. President Obama has deprived them of their perennial boogeyman.

This has helped the opposition find the maneuverability to challenge Iran’s vote-robbers. The hard-liners have no credible threat to rally around. Their disgraceful show trials on Iranian TV reveal their desperation. This has not only allowed fissures between various factions in Iran to grow, but also increased tensions among the conservatives themselves.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is desperately in need of a threat to help consolidate his conservative base and lend credibility to accusations of conspiracy against his moderate opposition. Imposing a gasoline embargo could be his last, best hope. Congress and the White House should think long and hard before throwing a lifeline to Iran’s vote-robbers."

Iranian Gas Sanctions Seem Inevitable...Will They Work? | Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://csis.org/blog/iranian-gas-sanctions-seem-inevitablewill-they-work)

S2
02 Dec 11,, 10:29
vsdoc, in addition to your link (which is appreciated) please use quote-marks when borrowing from other sources. It is only fair to the original authors.

Double Edge
02 Dec 11,, 11:03
The Saudis can cover that amount without breaking a sweat. So could the US. In fact the Saudis could cover all of Iran's daily export flow of about 2.5M BBLs/day, for a while at least. Prices were mixed today; some up, some down.
Libya put out 1.5 M bbls/day and the intervention there over five months did not disrupt oil prices too much meaning that OPEC had enough reserve capacity to cover the shortfall. If similar could be found here then an embargo looks feasible. It would certainly be preferable than a war by most parties concerned.


If the back of the Iranian economy is broken, the first casualty will be hope. Economic misery will kill people’s faith in a better future. The result will be political apathy. And rather than blaming Mr. Ahmadinejad, Iranians are likely to blame the United States.

Moreover, Iran’s ruling hard-liners are in disarray. The politics of fear is their bread and butter; they have long benefited from invoking foreign plots and Washington’s discredited regime-change policy. But now — with President Obama’s new outreach to Iran — the hard-liners have lost their 9/11. President Obama has deprived them of their perennial boogeyman.

This has helped the opposition find the maneuverability to challenge Iran’s vote-robbers. The hard-liners have no credible threat to rally around. Their disgraceful show trials on Iranian TV reveal their desperation. This has not only allowed fissures between various factions in Iran to grow, but also increased tensions among the conservatives themselves.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is desperately in need of a threat to help consolidate his conservative base and lend credibility to accusations of conspiracy against his moderate opposition. Imposing a gasoline embargo could be his last, best hope. Congress and the White House should think long and hard before throwing a lifeline to Iran’s vote-robbers.

Iranian Gas Sanctions Seem Inevitable...Will They Work? | Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://csis.org/blog/iranian-gas-sanctions-seem-inevitablewill-they-work)
Cutting of diplomatic relations with the UK has come from the top meaning Khamenei has sanctioned it. A-Jad is out of the picture and on his way out from what i understand. The only players are IRGC & Khamenei.

vsdoc
02 Dec 11,, 12:18
vsdoc, in addition to your link (which is appreciated) please use quote-marks when borrowing from other sources. It is only fair to the original authors.

Done.

And thanks for appreciating.

It means a lot to me to be able to meet your exacting norms on source credibility for once.

vsdoc
02 Dec 11,, 12:24
Meanwhile, Iran is going ahead and doubling existing refinery capacity, building 7 new refineries that will meet the remainder of the 50% of their domestic consumption needs that they are currently importing, and should further be ready with over 100 new GTL refineries churning out synthetic crude oil from natural gas by the year 2021.

All of it apparently not endearing them greatly to US Presidential Republican candidate Newt Gingrich who has been calling for military strikes against Iran's refineries.

"As a last recourse" of course .....

Double Edge
02 Dec 11,, 12:27
vsdoc,

Always mention the date of the entry you post.

The blog entry you posted is dated (http://csis.org/node/17181/blog/archive/200908) Aug 27 2009

Conditions could have changed since regarding sanctions ;)

S2
02 Dec 11,, 14:40
Nice catch Double Edge.

vsdoc
03 Dec 11,, 05:27
S2 do you have something of import to add once you are done Net etiquette policing (which is appreciated)?

snapper
03 Dec 11,, 05:46
The most recent round of sanctions on Iran were agreed and implemented by Britain, Canada and the US. The US has no Embassy in Tehran and Canada only has a Charge D'Affairs so I suppose we were the logical choice. The Canadians have decided to keep their Embassy open though. See Canada's embassy in Tehran to remain open- Politics - Canoe.ca (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/11/30/19041956.html) where there is also good graph of Iranian oil exports.

To my mind it makes sense sort out Syria first as this would reduce Hezbollah supply line and protect N.Israel but I am not sure how the time line is on a Iranian nuke which may need more urgent measures.

vsdoc
03 Dec 11,, 06:05
'Anti-UK protest not organized by Iran'

Fri Dec 2, 2011 5:38PM GMT

"Despite British allegations that Iranian authorities had organized Tuesday's protests outside the UK Embassy in Tehran, US Vice President Joe Biden says there is no such indication.

“I don't have any indication how and or if it (the protests) was orchestrated,” Biden told Reuters on Thursday. "

PressTV - 'Anti-UK protest not organized by Iran' (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213447.html)

Mihais
03 Dec 11,, 06:12
Mullahs 1-US 0

vsdoc
03 Dec 11,, 06:38
UK sanctions have no effect on Iran trade

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:33PM GMT

Governor of the Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration says recent unilateral sanctions imposed by Britain on Iran's banking and financial sector will have no effect on the country's overall trade volume.

Abbas Me'marnejad further said on Tuesday that during the first eight months of the current Iranian year (Starting from March 21), Iran has only imported USD 117.4 million of goods from Britain, Mehr News Agency reported.

“Therefore, in view of the total amount of Iran's imports during the same period, which stands at USD 39.7 billion, [imports from the UK] accounts for only 0.3 percent [of Iran's total imports],” he said, adding that the UK ranks 29th among Iran's trade partners.

The official went on to say that Iran's non-oil exports to Britain have added up to USD 20 million during the same months.

“Since Iran's non-oil exports totaled USD 27.4 billion [in that period], the share of this country [Britain] from Iran's non-oil exports stands at 0.07 percent,” he added.

Me'marnejad concluded that Britain is 51st among Iran's foreign trade partners in the area of non-oil exports.

Britain imposed new sanctions on Iran's banking system and energy sector after Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, released his latest report on November 8, accusing Iran of pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom George Osborne said on Monday, November 21, that the White Hall was terminating all contacts between the UK's financial system and the Iranian banking system.

Speaking through a statement, he said, "All UK credit and financial institutions are required to cease business relationships and transactions with all Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran.”

Washington also imposed new sanctions on Iran's oil and petrochemical industry and the Iranian companies supplying Tehran's nuclear program on the same day.

The new unilateral measures came after a failed attempt by the US and its allies to take Iran's case to the UN Security Council.

PressTV - UK sanctions have no effect on Iran trade (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212861.html)

snapper
03 Dec 11,, 12:03
Just to get the facts right about the title of this thread: The Bitish Ambassador was expelled by a vote in Irans Parliament, however this was never confirmed by the Supreme Ayatollah. After the looting of our Embassy we withdrew the Ambassador and his staff. We also expelled their Ambassador and his staff. I didn't understand these niceties and apologise.

To be quite honest I am tired of pussy footing around with Iran and waiting for the 'Green Movement' to do something. They HAVE a nuclear programme, get over your reports from people who haven't been given full access that fudge the issue. It's a FACT. They are breaking the agreements they have made in this regard and threatening their neighbours and our allies. They are repressing their own people in absolutely absurd ways (water fights are western imperialist inspired etc etc). They have a proclaimed policy of destroying another country. To top it off they won't let even me in! Let's find out how good these clerics are at war.

tankie
03 Dec 11,, 12:12
Let's find out how good these clerics are at war.


They will be like all politico's , shout n gob off :grump: , sit back and watch , they wont be getting blood on their hands (literately) and when they get their arses kicked , and they will ,,they may understand that their gods aint that cool after all ;)

Double Edge
03 Dec 11,, 13:21
Just to get the facts right about the title of this thread: The Bitish Ambassador was expelled by a vote in Irans Parliament, however this was never confirmed by the Supreme Ayatollah.
It was passed within a day or two, such speed of delivery can only come from a direction from the very top.


After the looting of our Embassy we withdrew the Ambassador and his staff. We also expelled their Ambassador and his staff. I didn't understand these niceties and apologise.
you still retain a charge d'affairs.


To be quite honest I am tired of pussy footing around with Iran and waiting for the 'Green Movement' to do something. They HAVE a nuclear programme, get over your reports from people who haven't been given full access that fudge the issue. It's a FACT. They are breaking the agreements they have made in this regard and threatening their neighbours and our allies. They are repressing their own people in absolutely absurd ways (water fights are western imperialist inspired etc etc). They have a proclaimed policy of destroying another country. To top it off they won't let even me in! Let's find out how good these clerics are at war.
Lets see how the sanction work out, whether more countries can be drawn in.

If OPEC can make up the shortfall (2.2M bbls/day), that takes away Asian countries reasons to hold out. Am posting that pic from your canoe link for reference here.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/11/30/iranoil.jpg

Doktor
03 Dec 11,, 14:03
I would be curious to find out what Iran Imports and from where.

IIRC, Imports from EU are 15-20% and China came third after EU and UAE. Those 3 were making 50% of Iranan imports.

Cut that and they have shortages of refined oil, machine parts and food.

Dreadnought
03 Dec 11,, 16:51
I would be curious to find out what Iran Imports and from where.

IIRC, Imports from EU are 15-20% and China came third after EU and UAE. Those 3 were making 50% of Iranan imports.

Cut that and they have shortages of refined oil, machine parts and food.

Iran still must ship out major amounts of crude to be refined into gasoline and then returned as a finished product.

Notice the US isint on that list.....Its because we already stole all the oil from Quwait,Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Libya just like the yammering uneducated idiots say we did and we went to war for. We dont need anymore.:eek::tongue::rolleyes:

JAD_333
03 Dec 11,, 20:35
Notice the US isint on that list.....Its because we already stole all the oil from Quwait,Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Libya just like the yammering uneducated idiots say we did and we went to war for. We dont need anymore.:eek::tongue::rolleyes:

Google for Afghan oil production yields: Facts and statistics about the Oil - production of Afghanistan. Updated as of 2011. ... Oil - production: 0 bbl/day (2010 est.):tongue:

I assume you're being facetious otherwise.:)

We import more oil from Canada than we do from all the Persian Gulf countries combined and that includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and and Iraq.

U.S. Crude Oil Imports (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm)

Doktor
03 Dec 11,, 20:52
Yanks get your facts straight

Iraq was oil
A-stan was drugs (for CIA fundings)
Libya was helping your allies who helped you with previous two (they need oil, too)

Oh, and Canada's oil five years from now is going to China. All of it.

don't you read?

Still no idea what Kosovo and Bosnia were about:confused:

Mihais
03 Dec 11,, 21:10
Who does?

But I hear Kosovo had some mineral(can't remember which) and there's also the largest base outside US built there.There you go.

JAD_333
03 Dec 11,, 21:21
Who does?

But I hear Kosovo had some mineral(can't remember which) and there's also the largest base outside US built there.There you go.


You mean the Bondsteel mines.

Camp Bondsteel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel)

Mihais
03 Dec 11,, 21:28
Yes.But I forgot to add the sarcasm emoticon the first time,while trying to imitate the average idiots telling ''secrets'' to one another.Really,the amount of BS people tend to believe is incredible.I guess it's true everywhere in the world and I have to live with it.

JAD_333
03 Dec 11,, 22:09
Yes.But I forgot to add the sarcasm emoticon the first time,while trying to imitate the average idiots telling ''secrets'' to one another.Really,the amount of BS people tend to believe is incredible.I guess it's true everywhere in the world and I have to live with it.

lol...don't let it get you down. You can always talk about the weather.:biggrin:

Dreadnought
04 Dec 11,, 18:30
Who does?

But I hear Kosovo had some mineral(can't remember which) and there's also the largest base outside US built there.There you go.

Unless, and I have not checked, they closed Ramstein Air Base in Germany. It was the largest.

Deltacamelately
05 Dec 11,, 05:36
What can be the possible fallouts of a blockade against all major Iranian ports?

lemontree
05 Dec 11,, 06:19
What can be the possible fallouts of a blockade against all major Iranian ports?
India ends up paying more foir crude oil, further increasing costs and pushing up inflation. This will affect the growth rate and slow things down.

Mihais
05 Dec 11,, 07:45
Blocking of Hormuz.If they can't sell anything,others should di the same.An eye for eye.Blockade is an act of war.

NUS
05 Dec 11,, 08:58
But I hear Kosovo had some mineral(can't remember which) and there's also the largest base outside US built there.There you go.

It's a major distribution center of heroin prodused in Afganistan. For real.

Double Edge
05 Dec 11,, 11:52
What can be the possible fallouts of a blockade against all major Iranian ports?
Does an oil embargo on Iran necessarily require a blockade of her ports ?

If the means of settlement are suitably curtailed then Iran will be reduced to barter.

Dago
18 Dec 11,, 03:11
Who does?

But I hear Kosovo had some mineral(can't remember which) and there's also the largest base outside US built there.There you go.

Camp Bondsteel


Camp Bondsteel and America’s plans to control Caspian oil

Camp Bondsteel, the biggest “from scratch” foreign US military base since the Vietnam War is near completion in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. It is located close to vital oil pipelines and energy corridors presently under construction, such as the US sponsored Trans-Balkan oil pipeline. As a result defence contractors—in particular Halliburton Oil subsidiary Brown & Root Services—are making a fortune.

In June 1999, in the immediate aftermath of the bombing of Yugoslavia, US forces seized 1,000 acres of farmland in southeast Kosovo at Uresevic, near the Macedonian border, and began the construction of a camp.

Camp Bondsteel is known as the “grand dame” in a network of US bases running both sides of the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. In less than three years it has been transformed from an encampment of tents to a self sufficient, high tech base-camp housing nearly 7,000 troops—three quarters of all the US troops stationed in Kosovo.

There are 25 kilometres of roads and over 300 buildings at Camp Bondsteel, surrounded by 14 kilometres of earth and concrete barriers, 84 kilometres of concertina wire and 11 watch towers. It is so big that it has downtown, midtown and uptown districts, retail outlets, 24-hour sports halls, a chapel, library and the best-equipped hospital anywhere in Europe. At present there are 55 Black Hawk and Apache helicopters based at Bondsteel and although it has no aircraft landing strip the location was chosen for its capacity to expand. There are suggestions that it could replace the US airforce base at Aviano in Italy.

According to Colonel Robert L. McClure, writing in the engineers professional Bulletin, “Engineer planning for operations in Kosovo began months before the first bomb was dropped. At the outset, planners wanted to use the lessons learned in Bosnia and convinced decision makers to reach base-camp ‘end state’ as quickly as possible.”

Initially US military engineers took control of 320 kilometres of roads and 75 bridges in the surrounding area for military use and laid out a base camp template involving soldiers living quarters, helicopter flight paths, ammunition holding areas and so on.

McClure explains how the Engineer Brigade were instructed “to merge construction assets and integrate them with the contractor, Brown & Root Services Corporation, to build not one but two base camps [the other is Camp Monteith] for a total of 7,000 troops.”

According to McClure, “At the height of the effort, about 1,000 former US military personnel, hired by Brown & Root, along with more than 7,000 Albanian local nationals, joined the 1,700 military engineers. From early July and into October [1999], construction at both camps continued 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Brown & Root Services provides all the support services to Camp Bondsteel. This includes 600,000 gallons of water per-day, enough electricity to supply a city of 25,000 and a supply centre with 14,000 product lines. It washes 1,200 bags of laundry, supplies 18,000 meals per day and operates 95 percent of the rail and airfield facilities. It also provides the camps firefighting service. Brown & Root are now the largest employers in Kosovo, with more than 5,000 local Kosovan Albanians and another 15,000 on its books.

Staff at Camp Bondsteel rarely venture outside the compound and their activities are secretive. Whilst other KFOR patrols are small and mobile with soldiers wearing soft caps and instructed to integrate with the local population, US military personnel leave Bondsteel in either helicopters or as part of infrequent but large heavily armed convoys.

In unnamed interviews US troops complain that hostility to their presence is growing as local inhabitants compare the investment in Camp Bondsteel with the continuing decline in their own living standards.

Those visiting Camp Bondsteel describe it as a journey through 100 years in time. The area surrounding the camp is extremely poor with an unemployment rate of 80 percent. Then Bondsteel appears on the horizon with its mass of communication satellites, antennae and menacing attack helicopters circling above. Brown & Root pay Kosova workers between $1 and $3 per hour. The local manager said wages were so low because, “We can’t inflate the wages because we don’t want to over inflate the local economy.”

The escalating US presence at Bondsteel was accompanied by increased activity by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Since its appearance most Serbs, Roma and Albanians opposed to the KLA have been murdered or driven out. Those remaining dare not leave their houses to buy food at the local stores and the need for military escorts stretch from children’s swimming pools to tractors taken away for repair. According to observers the KLA continue to act with virtual impunity in the US sector despite the high tech military intelligence facilities at Bondsteel.

When US troops arrive at Camp Bondsteel, they are more likely to be met by a Brown & Root employee directing them to their accommodation and equipment areas. According to G. Cahlink in Government Executive Magazine (February 2002), “Army peace keepers joke that they’re missing a patch on their camouflage fatigues. ‘We need one that says Sponsored by Brown & Root,’ says a staff sergeant, who, like more than nearly 10,000 soldiers in the region, has come to rely on Brown and Root Services, a Houston based contractor, for everything from breakfast to spare parts for armoured Humvees.”

The contract to service Camp Bondsteel is the latest in a string of military contracts awarded to Brown & Root Services. Its fortunes have grown as US militarism has escalated. The company is part of the Halliburton Corporation, the largest supplier of products and services to the oil industry.

In 1992 Dick Cheney, as Secretary of Defence in the senior Bush administration, awarded the company a contract providing support for the US army’s global operations. Cheney left politics and joined Halliburton as CEO between 1995 and 2000. He is now US vice president in the junior Bush administration. In 1992 Brown & Root built and maintained US army bases in Somalia earning $62 million. In 1994 Brown & Root built bases and support systems for 18,000 troops in Haiti doubling its earnings to $133 million. The company received a five-year support contract in 1999 worth $180 million per-year to build military facilities in Hungary, Croatia and Bosnia. It was Camp Bondsteel, however, that was dubbed “the mother of all contracts” by the Washington based Contract Services Association of America. There, “We do everything that does not require us to carry a gun,” said Brown & Roots director David Capouya.

The aim of outsourcing military support and services to private contractors has been to free up more soldiers for combat duties. A US Department of Defence (DoD) review in 2001 insisted that the use of contractors would escalate: “Only those functions that must be done at DoD should be kept at DoD.”

In sectors controlled by other Western powers, KFOR soldiers who are living in bombed out apartment blocks and old factories joke, “What are the two things that can be seen from space? One is the Great Wall of China, the other is Camp Bondsteel.”

More seriously a senior British military officer told the Washington Post, “It is an obvious sign that the Americans are making a major commitment to the Balkan region and plan to stay.” One analyst described the US as having taken advantage of favourable circumstances to create a base that would be large enough to accommodate future military plans.

Camp Bondsteel has become a key venue for important policy speeches by leading officials of the Bush administration.

On June 5, 2001 US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld explained to troops at Camp Bondsteel what role they played in the new administration’s economic strategy. He declared, “How much should we spend on the armed services? ...My view is we don’t spend on you, we invest in you. The men and women in the armed services are not a drain on our economic strength. Indeed you safeguard it. You’re not a burden on our economy, you are the critical foundation for growth.”

One month later, President George W. Bush made his first trip abroad to see US troops at the camp. He traveled directly from the Rome G8 summit, where tensions with European governments had come to the fore. In a speech described as a “retrenching” of the US in Europe, he insisted that US troops were in Kosovo to stay, had gone in together and would “leave together”. In a break from normal procedure, in front of cheering troops, Bush signed into law a Congress-approved increase in military spending of $1.9 billion.

Since then Camp Bondsteel has continued to grow, as it spearheads the first phase in a realignment of US military bases in Europe and eastward. The Bondsteel template is now being applied in Afghanistan and the new bases in the former Soviet Republics.

According to leaked comments to the press, European politicians now believe that the US used the bombing of Yugoslavia specifically in order to establish Camp Bondsteel. Before the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the Washington Post insisted, “With the Middle-East increasingly fragile, we will need bases and fly over rights in the Balkans to protect Caspian Sea oil.”

The scale of US oil corporations investment in the exploitation of Caspian oil fields and the US government demand for the economy to be less dependent on imported oil, particularly from the Middle-East, demands a long term solution to the transportation of oil to European and US markets. The US Trade & Development Agency (TDA) has financed initial feasibility studies, with large grants, and more recently advanced technical studies for the New York based AMBO (Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria Oil) Trans-Balkan pipeline.

Announcing a grant for an advanced technical study in 1999 for the AMBO oil pipeline through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania, TDA director J. Joseph Grandmaison declared, “The competition is fierce to tap energy resources in the Caspian region....Over the last year [1999], TDA has been actively promoting the development of multiple pipelines to connect these vast resources with Western markets. This grant represents a significant step forward for this policy and for US business interests in the Caspian region.”

The $1.3 billion trans-Balkan AMBO pipeline is one of the most important of these multiple pipelines. It will pump oil from the tankers that bring it across the Black Sea to the Bulgarian oil terminus at Burgas, through Macedonia to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore. From there it will be pumped on to huge 300,000 ton tankers and sent on to Europe and the US, bypassing the Bosphorus Straits—the congested and only route out of the Black Sea where tankers are restricted to 150,000 tons.

The initial feasibility study for AMBO was conducted in 1995 by none other than Brown & Root, as was an updated feasibility study in 1999. In another twist, the former director of Oil & Gas Development for Europe and Africa for Brown & Root Energy Services, Ted Ferguson, was appointed as the new president of AMBO [1997] after the death of former president and founder of AMBO, Macedonian born Mr Vuko Tashkovikj.

According to a recent Reuters article, Ferguson declared that Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, two of the worlds largest oil corporations, are preparing to finance the AMBO project.

The building of AMBO risks antagonising Turkey, the US’s main ally in the region. According to the Reagan Information Interchange, “While the United States is making an advantageous economic decision, it is overlooking its crucial strategic relationship with Turkey.”

The US is also antagonising its European allies and Russia with Camp Bondsteel and other smaller military bases run alongside the proposed AMBO pipeline route. It has been built near the mouth of the Presevo valley and energy Corridor 8, which the European Union has sponsored since 1994 and regards as a strategic route east-west for global trade.

In April 1999, British General Michael Jackson, the commander in Macedonia during the NATO bombing of Serbia, explained to the Italian paper Sole 24 Ore “Today, the circumstances which we have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO. But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security of the energy corridors which traverse this country.”

The newspaper added, “It is clear that Jackson is referring to the 8th corridor, the East-West axis which ought to be combined to the pipeline bringing energy resources from Central Asia to terminals in the Black Sea and in the Adriatic, connecting Europe with Central Asia. That explains why the great and medium sized powers, and first of all Russia, don’t want to be excluded from the settling of scores that will take place over the next few months in the Balkans.”

S2
18 Dec 11,, 03:16
Link Dago?

JAD_333
18 Dec 11,, 03:40
Dago, something like that was already posted. You following the thread?:)

Dago
18 Dec 11,, 05:34
Link Dago?

Camp Bondsteel and America&rsquo;s plans to control Caspian oil (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/oil-a29.shtml)


Dago, something like that was already posted. You following the thread?:)

Just saw that post, and when he said "base in Kosovo" thought of those conspiracies I read from the far left along time ago LOL!