Misc

Ostaad

My source was the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Their report of August 2008 on Iran.

I have also seen this report referenced in a number of articles on Iran.  Below is the link.  It is a long report so if you are looking for this specific item do a ctrlF and put in $75.

Basically, on this topic, the report says that Iran will incur un-sustainable current account deficit with Iranian Crude being priced below $75/barrel.

//www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2008/cr08284.pdf 

Thank you for paying attention. 

Game on in the Middle East

Thursday 05 March 2009
Game on in the Middle East
During her tour, Hillary Clinton has made clear that the grand US-Iran battle for strategic control of the region has been joined

guardian.co.uk

The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's quasi-regal progress through the Middle East this week seems to have been too much for Iran's Supreme Leader to bear. Speaking publicly about the new US administration for the first time since Barack Obama took power, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was by turns angry and dismissive.

"Even the new American president, who came to office with the slogan of bringing change in the policies of the Bush administration, avows unconditional commitment to Israel's security," Khamenei said. "This commitment means the defence of state terrorism, injustice, and oppression ... of Palestinians."

Obama was following the same "crooked ways" as his predecessor, he went on, and people such as the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, "who succumbed to surrender and compromise with the usurpers [Israel]" should by now have realised their mistake. Hamas-style resistance was the only way forward.

Khamenei's rant should not be considered Iran's final word on Washington's so far non-specific offers of bilateral dialogue. Rather it reflects an uneasy realisation in Tehran that Obama and Clinton are in the process of launching a multi-pronged strategic offensive across the Middle East that directly challenges recent Iranian gains.

It is a truism that George Bush's policies, especially the invasion of Iraq, greatly enhanced Iranian influence in the region. Now Obama appears intent on rolling back those advances even as he holds out the prospect of improved relations.

This week, after a phoney war dating from last November, the grand US-Iran battle for strategic control in the Middle East was joined. The visiting Clinton's underlying message was simple: game on.

Speaking in Egypt at the beginning of the week, Clinton said Washington's top priority was achieving "a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours and we will pursue it on many fronts". But this objective is becoming inextricably intertwined with the more urgent aim of pegging back Iran.

Clinton's announcement of $900m in aid to the Palestinians was carefully tied up with caveats that none of the money would go to, or be administered by, Iran's Hamas "clients" in Gaza. Proposed additional US funding for training Palestinian Authority security forces, past and possible future adversaries of Hamas, is another indirect way of pushing back Iran.

By insisting that a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict was "inescapable", and criticising the latest Israeli land grab in Arab East Jerusalem, Clinton seemed to set herself at odds with Israel's prime minister-designate, Binyamin Netanyahu. But on the biggest security issue facing Israel – Iran – there is no fundamental difference of opinion, just a (possibly temporary) difference in approach.

According to foreign policy expert Scott Lucas, writing on the Enduring America website, Washington may even be anticipating that, in due course, "Netanyahu will insist on a withdrawal from engagement with Iran if there is to be an [Israeli] engagement with the Palestinian Authority and the two-state process ... Indeed, he may already have made that clear to the Americans".

Washington's decision to send senior US envoys to Damascus after a four-year rift has opened another anti-Tehran front. This move, apparently orchestrated with Saudi Arabia, may augur resumed Israeli-Syrian peace talks, part of Clinton's "many front" approach. But equally it affords an opportunity to weaken Syria's alliance with Iran - and with Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

Speaking of which, Britain's unexpected volte-face this week in deciding to pursue talks with Hezbollah's political wing looks like another concerted attempt to undermine Tehran's influence. It's unlikely this hyper-sensitive initiative was undertaken without prior discussion with, and approval from Washington. If it flies, the US may talk, too.

Clinton's busy week isn't finished yet. Tomorrow in Geneva, she will seek firmer Russian support for western efforts to curb Iran's nuclear programme when she meets Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

This move follows closely on a letter sent by Obama to Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, reportedly linking a tougher, joint US-Russia approach to Iran to the possible scrapping of US plans to station defensive missiles in eastern Europe (which Russia abhors).

Closer co-operation with Moscow on the Middle East peace process, Afghanistan and strategic arms reductions is also on the Geneva agenda. But vitally important though these issues are, the discussion always seems to come back to Iran.

This was the week when Iran emerged as the central front in Obama's fast-evolving Middle East policy – and he is beginning to deploy his diplomatic forces with the audacity of hope and not a little cunning. Little wonder Ayatollah Khamenei sounded a bit rattled.

Mehrban, your numbers seem to jive with the figures...

put out by the Canadian Energy Resarch Institute (CERI). Canada is the largest source of hydrocarbon energy imports to the US and according to a report by CERI "a West Texas Intermediate crude price above
$70/bbl (US)" is needed for the industry "to resume growth". The same report also assumes "construction and operating costs rise in step with the oil price, exceeding the $70/bbl threshold in 2010 [the emphasis is mine]". The $70 per barrel price does not seem to be applicable only to Iran, but it seems to be a universal price level necessary for the oil and gas industry to sustain growth worldwide.

I am very curious to know the source(s) you've used to mention the $70 price.

Here's the CERI report:

//www.ogj.com/pdf_temp/354710.pdf

Kakoo Abarmard Loft Dareed ;0)

Yes Bring some Lavashak and if possible Hossein Derakhshan ...

Just Kidding ...

Enjoy your stay ;0) And Come Back Safely.

Gorbanat !

DK

ex senator redicules Hillary Clinton's views on Israel and Iran

James G Abourzek has written an excellent article about Hillary Clinton's trip to Middle East and the enslavement of US foregin policy by Israel and her backers in United Stated. Rosie has a link for it under the News section. I copied it here.  

//counterpunch.org/abourezk03052009.html

That's EXACTLY what mullahs want

Funny that this man Brzezinsky, the Godfather of Talebans, who still lives in the Cold-War era insists that there should be no time limits in the negotiations with mullahs, out of the fear that mullahs might be offended and "do not show any flexibility".

But that is exactly what mullahs want "ENDLESS" negotiations ... lol

Thank you Iraj Khan for the links

Everyone will have to negotiate from a position of weakness.  US is having problems in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, someone here talked about the containment of Russia and China which I am not sure how immediate that concern may be but certainly a concern. 

Geopolitically, Iran presently does not need the US but it is hurting from the fall of the price of oil and its economy could be destroyed.  It is my understanding that Iran's economy would need a$70/barrel of oil to function properly.  I am sure you all know where oil is trading today.

There is no doubt that AIPAC is very influential in US foreign affairs but it does not mean that because of this we should shrivel and give up our political stances.  

To Sialashgar

Well, it is not her fault! she is just repeating what she was told by the Zionists lobbyiests or even easier by Raum Emanuelle.

She is like the Energizer Bunny that gets her power from elsewhere. 

The Secretary Of States Of Israel

I am a democrat and I like to Believe that she is for the U.S of A but something

tells me that she is Just  another agent of Israel.

Hossein

AIPAC is in total control of the US congess and Amdinistration!

DO you remember the night of her defeat and his win, the first place they both gave a speech was in front of AIPAC, where they pledged to protect Israel and dont allow iran acquire nuclear power? So why you guys are so surprised? She is only a mouth piece for AIPAC! This is about who would control the middle east!

C'mon you know those asses are in control! Israel would never allow Iran to be an equal apartner with the US. Israel and US want to dominate the region and they are going to make sure Iran is not a threat to their goal, since Iran can be very strong and in charge of the region's economy.

Remember what Henry Kissinger saind in 1974 when he talked in his book about Iran? "we cannot offord another Japan in Asia!"?

Nuclear Iran is only an alibi. If it was not nuclear, they would find millions of other things! They know short of total nuking Iran they cannot win a war against Iran. So the new strategy she was talking about is diplomacy. That is, make lots of dealing with countries around the globe and region who would now be willing to cooperate more since Obama is popular, and pressure Iran as a united front. Basically the major powers plus israel, saudi, UAE, Iraq, India, Japan, china, Russia, france, Uk, Turky and so on strangle Iran to death through enormous economic and political pressure.

The change we can believe in!

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Senate: "don't let Israel dictate our

policy towards Iran".

This is what he said to Senate committee today: //www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/03/090305_si_wmj_brzezinsky_iran.shtml

The more I look into her ugly face as she talks..

the more I get convinced that here sits a person without logic, intelligence, someone who is unable to have a single sane reasoning about the world evolving around her.

The US is screwed. 2010-2012 will be the final nails in the coffin.

How did

Bill handle her? Man she is annoying

Don't give up so fast.

Iran to be invited to a conference on Afghanistan.  

//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si...

Reincarnation of George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton on Iran

But she is not the only voice on Iran. A committee in US Senate is discussing engagement with Iran. This is the report: There's always more than one side to any story....
//www.payvand.com/news/09/mar/1054.html

Khodeti

Even if Iran gets access to a nuclear weapon, its not going to be a threat to US or Israel. US can totally
destroy Iran with a single submarine from Norfolk, VA. If I know it, the Russian know it and the Iranians know it too. The missile defense can easily be used against Russian missiles and they know it. Its just meaningless to use Iranian excuse. On the other hand, Iranians use Hezbullah, Hamas as proxy, nuclear weapon will not be a strategic issue for Iran or Russia. Other excuses are just Khar Kodeti.

Why is Israel even a

Why is Israel even a consideration in Iranian affairs?

It is the IRI who has self-appointed itself to liberate the Palestinians while enslaving its own citizens?

Why should the Iranian people pay for the misadventurism of IRI??

Stop interfering in Israel's affairs if you don't want retaliation.

The US will never give up Israel for the sake of a militant Islamic Republic.

The question most of you need to ask yourself is the Pink Elephant in the room. Why was Israel established in the region as a buffer zone to begin with??

Once you answer that question, things will make more sense to you.

to Hardy har har

look, we're trying to solve the same problem...

we just have different methods. i read the knews, listen to politicians talk and i assess the situation based on many different facts. but facts are facts, America doesn't care about human rights in Iran, they are using it as a tool, if you don't agree with that, then you're not a very smart person, and i can't do anything about that.

iranians have to obtain their own rights, khatami is not my solution. people of iran, if they really want to get their rights, they have to work hard and otbain those rights, and many people in iran are doing that.

look, stability and security have to worth something too. iran i would suggest right now has okay security. you don't see bombs blowing up every day, you're not worring about your family dying on streets. that is a blessing my friend, whether you realize it or not.

after security, we have to have true freedom of speech in our society which brings about oversight to the system. Khamenei is a dictator of sorts, not an absolute dictator, but a dictator indeed. his role is to over see the entire system without getting directly involved. he has done so with a relative success. i believe that with small steps we can get where we want. revolution is not the answer and foreign intervention is not the answer. we have to move within the system and reform the system within. khatami is trying to do so, i support him.

i think this is the best solution, but i might be totally wrong. what is your solution, i want to know.

Israel is running the show

As long as Israel is in control of the US foreign policy, there would be no change in the relation between Iran and the US no matter who is in the WH: Bush, Obama, or mother Teresa. It's obvious that the new Administration, like the previous one, has no interest in resolving the issues through negotiations.

The Secretary of State is a

The Secretary of State is a sagacious realist, not an a n t i - Bush contrarian (such as this forum) crafting policy just to be the converse of her predecessor. Just the other day in Egypt Ms. Clinton conceded that it is "very doubtful" diplomacy will work with Iran vis-à-vis several issues.

Her team is already preparing policy for the next stage. Unfortunately, the problem of Iran will begin to complicate heavily over the next year, so I expect Tehran's involvement in Afghanistan to escalate as a means to gain leverage.

to Anonymous999999

U said "i support people like khatami that are challenging Iran's system from within. most iranian people i think (i might be wrong) trust khatami, and if he gets elected this time, iranians can take steps towards obtainting their god given rights."

You can stick to your gun and support, even go and vote for whoever you like, it wouldn't make one damn hell of a difference regarding the realities on the ground and your beloved Khtami.

Khatami said on so many occasions that challenging Iran's system from within (if you are truly that naive to belive that is what Khatami said, meant or tried to do during his eight year tenure as so called president of the IRI) or in other words, standing up to Velayat-e-faqih system or trying to change it is TREASON, TREASON and MORE TREASON and that he cannot/will not do a damn thing about it since the position of presidency in today's Iran is that of a BUTLER or "tadarokatchi".

"Most" (as you say if not all) Iranian people certainly lost their trust in Khatami but PREFER/CHOOSE Khatami to/over Ahmadinejad out of a lack of a better choice PERIOD

but IF you consider "MOST" Iranian people as retards, then they surely STILL trust Khatami with their lives.

Iranians can get nowhere but to abyss and eventual doom with Khatami or anybody else in the fully tested and wholly examined absolutely rigid unreformable Islamic Republic of Iran.

P.S. I talked about Universal not American declaration of human rights accepted by the whole world or at least those who are signatory to it and therefore bound by it. If you want to label it as American and therefore not worth being respected and followed, that is your problem.

Connecting the dots!

I have said here before that USA has lost its way with Iran and number of other states. But Iran is for certain. Confusion is the word comes to mind. I think USA`s policies are wrong in principal, tactics and implimentation or even representation! I believe that in principal they are not setting policies that are in line with TALKS(alleged dialogue) and in tactics they are using the same old instead of doing something new, only the actors are different and the way they are going about this business is all wrong and backward sending a letter here and there and Israel has become this UNPLEASANT back seat driver.At last representation? They have Dennis Ross to look at Iran`s file??? well, they might as well should have asked Benyamin Netanyahou to look at it himself and Hillary Clinto is the secretary of states, and I remember what she said about Iran when she was campaigning for presidency.

I don`t think Obama`s administration could accompolish much in Iran`s case. because we have not seen or heard anything new yet. If anything things are going down the drain.

to Hardy har har

if what i said is defending Mullah's then i'm sorry, i like to defend Mullahs.

America is using human rights and democracy as a weapon, just like Islamic gov. is using religion as a weapon...so there is no difference between the two.

but what is importat is true human rights and true democracy for iranian people. iranian people have to obtain this on their own...just like any great nations...i support people like khatami that are challenging Iran's system from within. most iranian people i think (i might be wrong) trust khatami, and if he gets elected this time, iranians can take steps towards obtainting their god given rights.

we don't want American democracy and human rights, they have shown enough human rights all around the world. America frees people from oppression by killing them, shedding their blood and destroying their homes. Isreal is the 51st state of America. America can not talk about human rights and keep a straight face. Mullah's have more legitimacy than America when it comes to iran.

by the way, i hate people that suck up to America as though America is so innocent. what a shame. if we caer about the truth, then let's be fair.

Good news for you guys

//www.voanews.com/persian/2009-03-05-voa32.cf...

You are correct Anonymous999999

I don't want to sound like a broken record but what is the objective they follow?

Let's assume that the goal is to stop Iran from all the stuff that they have been mentioning. Fine, what historical data do they have available about the Islamic Republic, specially from the last eight years, to tell them the same tactic produces the highest result?

What part of "doesn't work" don't they get?

Seems to me this is how it works.
They know that the tactics has not worked, actually has harmed the US, so they come up with the idea of change. It begins with: We will talk. Great.

Then they come around the table and the advisers tell them what to push to gain. Who are the advisers? The same people who originally put us in the mess at the first place. Those are the "only" available ME analysts that are still running the strategic policies and behavior of the ME branch of the government.

So in reality, they have possibly added one point to the old formula, which had not worked. If this is a program, which it is, the first will go and as soon as it arrives to the next statement to be implemented, will halt. It's as logical as it can be to expect failure from these policies, which have failed before.

Europe and some other beneficiaries who enjoy the lack of US connection with Iran were frightened earlier with Obama election, but now seem to have relaxed a bit showing that they have no confidence in this administration to achieve the positive steps towards Iran and the Middle East. It's puzzling to me and reminds me of the old Persian saying, that only a donkey falls in the same ditch twice! Donkey meaning an idiot and not the Democratic Party ;)

There is one small possibility that when they sit on the table, they would love one another and sign a treaty based on trust and compassion between the two nations. It's not happening.

The fact is that both countries can benefit from relations with one another and they don't need to love each other to reach an understanding. This attitude of "Old policies" that Clinton talks about is not going to benefit the talks for either party. The flaw? Advisers.

Anonymous999999: Check out your awsome defense of mullahs

"iran should move towards democracy and human right in it's own terms and definitions"

But Iran's "own terms and definitions of democracy
and human rights" have already been implemented, exercised and followed in Iran since 1979 according to the criminal ruling mullahs with whom you apparently sympathize and see eye-to-eye.

Iran is still a signatory to the UN universal human rights treaty (not the U.S.' but the U.N.'s) and must respect, observe and be bound by it, If mullahs believe in their own terms and defintions of democracy and human rights, why don't they take back Iran's signature? Why do they prefer to remain a signatory?

World is changing ...............

I was a bit skeptical with Obama, and his promises of change, but soon after his election it was obvious all he said prior to his election were all bunch of BS.

What Obama and Hillary Clinton don’t understand is the Bush era is what crippled US in political and economical ways, a continuations of the old mentality will not result new outcomes.

Last weekend Clinton in her tour of Middle East proved that Obama and the new gang are continuing the old Mickey Mouse business in the region, and by trying to make a deal with Russia, and promising carrots to Bashar Assad, they are trying to gain a leverage against Iran.

World is changing, but some are not catching on yet!

check out her awesome logic..

Hey, Russia if you help us prevent Iran from going Nuclear we won't make the defense system in Europe...but since we can never be sure whether iran is going for A-bomb or not, then please help us make a defense system in Europe.

What the F*** is she talking about. After sept.11 USA realy showed her true colors to people in the world.

I used the hate the Islamic Republic with passion, but now i'm sympothetic to them, and i'm not afraid to say so, what are you goint to do about it?

US wants gobal dominance and they won't rest till they turn every country into what they like them to be. this is not about human rights, democracy and important things like that which we all agree on.

we all want democracy and human rights.

simply US does not have the legitimacy to speak about human right and democracy. that said, iran should move towards democracy and human right in it's own terms and definitions.

same old

Same old same old Bush policies.

So much for the change.

-YT

Ajab Ostaad-e sakht geeree-yeh

I don't think I am going to take any course with her for I know i would flunk the course... I rather go see ans take another easy professor 's for easy grade with little work.

Boy... went way over my head...she is even more tough minded than Matilda