Iran Reiterates Threat To Close Strait of Hormuz If Attacked

[S2]

"You spending your own blood and treasure to serve you is not the same as allies spending ANY of their blood and treasure in doing the same..."

That's for our allies to decide. As an enemy of America there's little cause to hold dear your view on that matter.

"...As other threads indicate, that holds true only as long and as far as America decides it does."

As those other threads indicate, you appear alone among those whom view Aussiegunner and Cdez as precient. Their failure to acknowledge Suez, Grenada, and S. Vietnam (among many points of U.K/U.S. divergence) suggests they have no better grip on history than demonstrated by you here.

[S2]

"So what you are saying is that India is really good (thus far) at doing business concurrently with mutual enemies."

Not at all. What I'd be saying is India is enabled by unfettered access to market-priced oil to buy from wherever it may be found.

That'll change should Iran have its way.

[vsdoc]

As an enemy of America there's little cause to hold dear your view on that matter.

You do not know me. More than half my family are compatriots of yours. And this is first degree family I speak of. New Jersey, LA, Seattle, Reno. I count other compatriots of yours as close intellectual, technological, commercial, and policy/advocacy partners. Many of them having crossed over the divide between business partners to friends.

Your government considers me to be important enough (and non-threatening enough considering my line of work related to bio-terrorism risk) to have offered me a long-term multiple entry business visa. For dealing with some of your most closely guarded federal facilities.

ALL of them know of my views towards some of your nation's policies and actions. Both historical and current. NONE of them consider me to be their enemy. Critic yes. But I say it as I see it to your face. No sniveling suck-up/back-stab double speak for me thank you.

As those other threads indicate, you appear alone among those whom view Aussiegunner and Cdez as precient. Their failure to acknowledge Suez, Grenada, and S. Vietnam (among many points of U.K/U.S. divergence) suggests they have no better grip on history than demonstrated by you here.

All I can say is please do not mistake the silence of others as support for you. And learn to read the disappointment and disillusionment between the lines of some of your senior members there.

[vsdoc]

That'll change should Iran have its way.

Please define "have its way" and please tell me how things will change for India - or for others who would like to buy ME oil. Be it from Iran, UAE or KSA.

P.S. Will continue this next week. Have a great weekend with your fish and remember that I am not your enemy.

[S2]

"...I am not your enemy. "

On a forum such as this it is only by your words that you can be measured.

[Double Edge]

We have spent enough of our Troops lives, their time and our money in both supporting our Troops but also the Iraqi's and Afghanistani's.


..They (Iraq, Afghanistan) have our ear if they wish.

Umm, Dredd i left out Aghanistan for a reason as i believe you may have a chance of setting up a base there post 2014, that is if Karzai has his way.

Re:Iraq, was watching Dateline on the BBC and one of the commentators suggested that Obama had sabotaged a future base deal in Iraq. So its not just Maliki in the picture here. Not sure how true this is. What do you make of it ?

What is clear is that the departure of the US from Iraq at this early juncture will create a power vacuum which Iran & Turkey will compete for. In the end which of the two eventually influences Iraq the most will also have more influence with the GCC & the region.

[Double Edge]

Possessing the means to defend themselves while providing secured access by all others to their energy largesse is decades away...if the GCC and KSA truly committed themselves to such today.

Nevermind that generating competing militaries across a very short strait of water might be a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy of doom.

Gulf monarchs do not want a powerful indigenous army because they fear an overthrow by coup. They will buy lots of expensive toys but will ensure their army will never be in a positoin to threaten their rule. That is the picture as of today.

Tomorrow, if ever they turn into representative democracies it might be different.

Btw, KSA is in the GCC.

[Double Edge]

Please also do not insult our collective intelligence again that 1988 was about coming to the rescue of Kuwait and other countries around the world like mine.

It was about maintaining your global hegemony by control world oil trade. By controlling who bought how much from whom for what amount and in return for what - be it money, arms, trade, contraband, drugs, regime change, or geopolitical influence.

S-2's right on this one. Your ignorant point of view is very common and would say is typical of those that have never lived abroad.

Tell me where was this American control of oil trade during the oil crises of '73 & '79 ?

They had no say in how much was charged for a barrel of oil. What could the US or the rest of the world do when the Gulf Arabs decided to double oil prices overnight as a result of the Yom Kippur war. I'll tell you what they did they decided to diversify & develop other sources of oil so OPEC would never ever be able to pull off the same stunt again.

After the mid-seventies to early eighties all the oil in the GCC was owned by the corresponding NOCs. The only control the US has in the gulf is that of a traffic cop in the sea lanes of the Gulf. A role that is very welcome by the countries that export as well as those that trade with those exporters. US does not get a say in how much oil is sold for what price to whom nor do they care.

What convinces you that Iran would do a better job here ? The GCC certainly would not welcome it, they're quite happy with the current status quo.

So please get off your savior to the world white horse and admit that you are holding the world to ransom and using your allies' blood and treasure to keep your Imperialistic grip on the world as foreign policy.

What a remarkably left wing comment. You sure you want to join the BJP ? would think this sort of bent would go down very well with the CP(I). Makes no difference to me but please ensure you know what you're getting into

China and India are two of Iran's biggest oil customers. That alone is more than a third of the world - if not close to HALF.

The world's second and fourth largest economies.

India is 11th in nominal dollars for GDP. Ignore PPP, nobody will accept PPP dollars to trade with.

Also Japan i think is second after China in oil trade with Iran. Iran is our second biggest source for oil after KSA.

U.S. Balance Of Trade With India

"All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis..."

There's a $100 billion just in military contracts with India up for grabs in the next decade

[TopHatter]

Accuse away. Gross distorter and flame baiter are pretty insipid compared to brown-shirt fascist anyways.

You've been warned already about this sort of thing...and accusing somebody like S-2 of fascism is a really bad idea. Next time you'll be getting a vacation.

[Double Edge]

TH,

There's a little history to that comment in an earlier Iran thread that got locked.

Its the common stereotype you go for but somebody (BF ?) questioned the defintion of fascism here a while back and made me realise its a rather slippery -ism to define.

[TopHatter]

TH,

There's a little history to that comment in an earlier Iran thread that got locked.

Its the common stereotype you go for but somebody (BF ?) questioned the defintion of fascism here a while back and made me realise its a rather slippery -ism to define.

"Brown-shirt fascist" leaves little room for interpretation, as it generally refers only to the Sturmabteilung.

In any case, please do not discuss moderating actions in the open forum.
I am more than willing to discuss them via PM but the forum guidelines are clear about debating them here on the public forum.

[Dreadnought]

I just went through your post, as well as all older versions of it (those before each edit) and I don't see any double "we" anywhere (except for "we WElcome", but I assume that is not what you are talking about). Can you give more details, because currently I just don't see the problem (In my defense it is 4 am here)

Hi Tarek, I have noticed sometimes that when I post there are sometimes double words. However when I attmpt to edit they are not there. Its happened a few times. Maybe the glitch is on my end. The next time it happens again I will point it out.

[Dreadnought]

Umm, Dredd i left out Aghanistan for a reason as i believe you may have a chance of setting up a base there post 2014, that is if Karzai has his way.

Re:Iraq, was watching Dateline on the BBC and one of the commentators suggested that Obama had sabotaged a future base deal in Iraq. So its not just Maliki in the picture here. Not sure how true this is. What do you make of it ?

What is clear is that the departure of the US from Iraq at this early juncture will create a power vacuum which Iran & Turkey will compete for. In the end which of the two eventually influences Iraq the most will also have more influence with the GCC & the region.

IMO, The reason that many suggest why we wont have a base there is do to the fact that Obama and Ponetta does not want the Iraqis to be able to persecute US Troops in their courts. Obama and Ponetta wanted some form of protection for the Troops that serve there and given the circumstances and violence that continues to happen, the Troops have to be able to do their jobs and that means if the Iraqis or their government officials made deals with outside government forces, malitia or factions (Sadrists) the Troops should be able to offensively target them and go after them without fear of persecution if they step upon someones toes. There are elements of the Iraqi government that would not hear of it. So they could not reach that agreement so therefore they will only have advisors and a small contingent to protect the US embassy etc. I cant say I blame them as far as wanting protection for our Troops and the jobs they have to do.

Basically IMO, they are bending to Al Sadrs wishes no doubt. The US should have punched his ticket when they had the oppertunity. That idiot right there is your Iranian nutball influence in Iraq's government. However, with troops in Kuwait and percieved in Afghanistan they wont be far away.

This article pretty much sums it up.
U.S. to 'pull troops out of iraq before the end of January' | Mail Online

[Parihaka]

China and India are two of Iran's biggest oil customers. That alone is more than a third of the world - if not close to HALF.

The world's second and fourth largest economies.

Does it not occur to you that the mere fact China and India are buying Irans oil disproves your notion of American hegemony?
Or are you seriously suggesting that oil would be cheaper and more plentiful if Iran were allowed control of the straits?

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, S2, TopHatter, vsdoc, Parihaka, et al,

Sorry for the tardy reply.

Pending Rocco's reply, my understanding from reading Badrakumar's articles is that you wanted to have a more permanent presence in Iraq by way of a military base but Maliki wasn't able to pull it off. The location would have been useful, given its proximity to trouble spots around the area.

(COMMENT)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki owe his current position to the Iranians. He would not have been able to hold on, had it not been for the deal he brokered through the Supreme Leaders (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) efforts with Sayyid Muqtadā al-Ṣadr. While it may appear that Nouri al-Maliki wants the US to stay, in fact, but it was al-Maliki's pledge (to have US troops withdraw) that was traded for that influence.

The US is a military hegemony in decline. But in 2002/2003, many of the Think Tanks thought that the US could be a power regional influence if it could establish a substantial military base in a centrally location. Without the Iraq invasion, such a (ground force sustainable) location would seemed out of reach. The thought was to liberate the county such that, the grateful Iraqis would grant basing rights. Thus, the hegemony would again be able to project a credible shadow.

It's a nice fantasy to be able to walk away from the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, giving them the finger on the way out the door. But realpolitik says otherwise.

(COMMENT)

I will say that logistically, it would be difficult to accomplish, but politically, it would have no major obstacles to overcome. We simple leave. We always said that our presence was not about oil. So other than that, what strategic interest can we state?

America's departure from the Persian gulf would leave Iran as the de facto regional hegemon. In THAT region it would mean, without question, control of the oil spigot.

It was about maintaining your global hegemony by control world oil trade. By controlling who bought how much from whom for what amount and in return for what - be it money, arms, trade, contraband, drugs, regime change, or geopolitical influence.

The Iran Bourse threatens America's grip on the world and American economy.

Both of which are probably on the brink of a very steep slope right now.

(COMMENT)

This is a valid point. But the greater strategic interest is making the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea stand on its own two-feet and confront the problem.

Does the US really want to make these regional states totally dependent on our military ability to fight for and defend them? (Defacto Police) Many believe, yes! They believe that this is exactly the US strategy has in play (whether it is true or not).

A hegemony is only as powerful as it home base economy. And the US is suffering greatly in that regard. It does not have either the political will or the monetary muscle to rebuild its infrastructure. It will gradually lose its tax base and be unable to sustain a first rate fighting force, causing its hegemony to lose its credibility. (REMEMBER: Currently the DOD's budget is bigger than all the other departments and agencies combined.)

Au Contraire, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are positively insistent on your presence.
Even if they were not, as S2 has pointed out US prosperity depends on free trade, a cornerstone being unrestricted passage for shipping.

(COMMENT)

This is a political slight of hand. It sounds more impressive than it is.

• Kuwait, the fall back position at Ali al-Salem AB.
• Bahrain, Fifth Fleet is also headquartered, may, at the peak it has 1000 personnel.
• Qatar, Air Base, which has about 415 U.S. personnel;
• Egypt's Sinai Deser, about 400 are based in the continuing multinational observer force, created by the Camp David Accords
• Another 2,000 troops, most of them U.S. Marines, are stationed on amphibious vessels in the Persian Gulf.

We ask them to stay, and them present it to our population in such a way as it looks like they actually want us. It is no different than Iraq, and the US Command (USF-I) saying that the Iraqis want us there. They haven't wanted us for years. If they really did want us, they would have made it happen. But that is not the case at all. We were essentially begging them to stay.

For the rest, it is merely for show. It cost the taxpayer about $50B-$60B a year, depending on the calculation method.

They is a very strong tendency to argue for the position that the US has an unquestionable strategic interest in the region. Again, that interest is based on the 13 to 17 Oil Tankers that pass through the Straits on a daily basis. But those tankers represent their biggest influence over the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea nations. They have the greatest interest and they should be the ones who share the greatest costs. If the US presence was that essential to the safety of foreign owned tankers of multi-national corporations that owe no allegiance to the US, then they have to pay the US to protect them.

Most Respectfully,
R