Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants

[Mihais]

Not that Iran cares a bit about the West.It has the whole East as client.

Btw,the Americans will jump you in a few moments.

[NUS]

Not that Iran cares a bit about the West.It has the whole East as client.

One more reason for paranoid attention to Iran from the West.

Btw,the Americans will jump you in a few moments.

Well, nothing new about it. We all know the typical outcome.

[Mihais]

I would not call that attention paranoid.Iran getting in control(directly or through it's allies) of oil rich Shia areas is a tangible possibility.IIRC your Motherland doesn't tolerate too many independent rulers in your own sensible areas in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

[Double Edge]

Point is West will never admit Iran is clean, unless new pro-american government of Iran will allow americans drill for oil for free. Even Gaddafi who did everything West demanded, is still being blamed in WMD production. His mistake was attempt to change Production Share Agreement with western companies.

Eh ?

[Mihais]

A widespread belief in our corner of the world,although in general is simply expressed as ''it's about oil''.
Frankly I hope it is,since it makes a lot more sense than what the French and the Brits said.

[Double Edge]

All 'for the oil' means here is that they have the coin to repay for the operations.

How did the oil contracts work out in Iraq for the Americans ? they got nothing

Because the Iraqi's wanted too major share of the profits.

Its anybody's guess whether the Libyans will be different.

But they will pay any expenses towards liberating them.

[S2]

"Point is West will never admit Iran is clean, unless new pro-american government of Iran will allow americans drill for oil for free..."

Oh boy. We've a bright bulb here...

In the end, of course, it IS all about the oil. Unfettered access to all of the gulf's oil, not just Iran's, is critical to all the players in the global economy. Direct use of that oil, for the most part, doesn't include America. We import about 9% ( Energy Information Administration)of our gross petroleum demand from the middle east. However, we deeply benefit from the global marketplace and have a huge stake in its sustainment and growth. For that to happen our global trading partners need access to energy at market prices. Free and unfettered delivery of the gulf's prime product and the market pricing arising from such favors EVERYBODY except a determined and outcast few.

Or, NUS, we could all carve out energy fiefdoms. Care to guess how that would work out?

[NUS]

Unfettered access to all of the gulf's oil, not just Iran's, is critical to all the players in the global economy. Direct use of that oil, for the most part, doesn't include America. We import about 9% ( Energy Information Administration)of our gross petroleum demand from the middle east.

Direct use of that oil, for the most part, doesn't include America's taxpayers . Western oil companies got their share of profits. And knowing the level of corruption in US-occupied countries i bet it is not small. At least big enough to pay to lobby in Congress and White house.

If you think about it it's a perfect little scheme. Taxpayers got all the losses paying for the war, oil companies got all the profits. I bet Wall Street was jealous... until 2008.

Or, NUS, we could all carve out energy fiefdoms. Care to guess how that would work out?

With much more democracy and much less lies about urge to spread it in oil rich countries. Imagine, Iran might have been a democracy for 50 years now. And who knows, may be Iraq and Saudi Arabia too...

[snapper]

I think it may be more accurate to say Gaddafis mistake was vis a vis his own people... we didn't 'liberate' Benghazi, Libyans did. But that is off the subject... We pay Iraq for oil so why wouldn't we pay Iran? (we do).

[NUS]

I think it may be more accurate to say Gaddafis mistake was vis a vis his own people... we didn't 'liberate' Benghazi, Libyans did.

Oh, come on! Dont get me started on libyan tribal politics! Even western press slowly admits - most Libyans are strongly pro-Gaddafi. Dictators don't arm their own people with free ak-47 for anyone from army depots. Gaddafi did this couple of months ago. There are pro-Gaddafi rallies even in Benghazi. Without western support Libyans would tore apart "rebels" long ago.

But that is off the subject... We pay Iraq for oil so why wouldn't we pay Iran? (we do).

The question is how much are you willing to pay. To be more precise how much of your money will be in a pockets of western oil companies and how much in a hand of government of Iran. Google "Operation Ajax" to see how far those companies are ready to go for this difference. Or simply remember how Bush family and Cheney are connected with oil industry.

[Double Edge]

Direct use of that oil, for the most part, doesn't include America's taxpayers . Western oil companies got their share of profits. And knowing the level of corruption in US-occupied countries i bet it is not small.

There are no western oil companies in Iraq. Chinese & Russian yes. I'd bet they will also be in Libya. They get the job done for bottom dollar.

There aren't too many foreign oil companines in the Gulf these days because the bulk of the industry was nationalised a few decades back and belongs to their respective govts.

If you think about it it's a perfect little scheme. Taxpayers got all the losses paying for the war, oil companies got all the profits. I bet Wall Street was jealous... until 2008.

With much more democracy and much less lies about urge to spread it in oil rich countries. Imagine, Iran might have been a democracy for 50 years now. And who knows, may be Iraq and Saudi Arabia too...

If Mossadegh did not decide to screw with the oil interests at the time, Iran could have been in a very different position. It could have been the most stable in that region. Maybe even the most advanced.

[snapper]

"most Libyans are strongly pro-Gaddafi" Evidence pls. As far as I am aware no western agents nor money were present in Benghazi when they decided to be free of Gadaffi. As for your tribal theory - are not the people of Libya members of tribes also and - to say tribes 'liberated' Benghazi is synonomous with saying Libyans liberated Benghazi.

You seem to have lost the plot. The price of oil is not set by some ghostly 'West' but by investors all over the world, western investors are no different from any other invester the markets. The price of oil rests on the global market and the price of concessions for testing (which is expensive in itself) rests largely on future predictions of world oil prices and the geological surveys. To my knowledge there is no single oil well in any Arab or Persian territory that is exclusivesly owned by a European or American company, but feel free to disprove me. All are partnerships and usualy have to be by the laws of the individual countries in which multinational oil companies invest.

Sadly Sir you appear to have a very simplistic and polarised view of the dealings of energy companies. Having spent a year primarily dealing with the NABUCCO pipeline I assure you nothing is as simple as you seem to believe.

As for operation Ajax, that was 1953 I believe - what is the relevance to now? Nor do I understand the relevance of your reference to Bush and Cheney... Granted the Bushes have shares in oil companies; so do I and many others... and?

Most of all what has oil got to with the Iranian nuclear programme?

[Aryajet]

With much more democracy and much less lies about urge to spread it in oil rich countries. Imagine, Iran might have been a democracy for 50 years now. And who knows, may be Iraq and Saudi Arabia too...

NUS,
It is not just oil, US and rest of Western nations are in love with Opium, that is why they are in Afghanistan. Didn't you know that?


Sarcasm switch is off now.

[NUS]

There are no western oil companies in Iraq.

What planet are you from?
Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UK 19%
US 16%

If Mossadegh did not decide to screw with the oil interests at the time, Iran could have been in a very different position. It could have been the most stable in that region. Maybe even the most advanced.

So, if you are being raped, you should simple wait until rapist is satisfied?

[NUS]

"most Libyans are strongly pro-Gaddafi" Evidence pls.

Libya updates

As far as I am aware no western agents nor money were present in Benghazi when they decided to be free of Gadaffi. As for your tribal theory - are not the people of Libya members of tribes also and - to say tribes 'liberated' Benghazi is synonomous with saying Libyans liberated Benghazi.

Using your logic, every armed rebbelion is justified, and two armed thugs robbing one victum is a democratic process.

You seem to have lost the plot. The price of oil is not set by some ghostly 'West' but by investors all over the world, western investors are no different from any other invester the markets. The price of oil rests on the global market and the price of concessions for testing (which is expensive in itself) rests largely on future predictions of world oil prices and the geological surveys. To my knowledge there is no single oil well in any Arab or Persian territory that is exclusivesly owned by a European or American company, but feel free to disprove me. All are partnerships and usualy have to be by the laws of the individual countries in which multinational oil companies invest.

You should actually read what i said. I said nothing about price of oil. Who gets the price is important.

As for operation Ajax, that was 1953 I believe - what is the relevance to now?

Don't know. I have a fantastic assumption. What if Iranians are fed up with being pawns in Great Game and want to live in peace? And what if looking at an invaded countries around they see A-bomb as the only way to garantee this?

Most of all what has oil got to with the Iranian nuclear programme?

With peaceful part of it? None. As for military part, tell me a better option to keep US troops away from Iranian soil.