How to Put the Squeeze on Iran
The Wall Street Journal / Orde F. Kittrie
12-Nov-2008 (7 comments)

However, Tehran has an economic Achilles' heel -- its extraordinarily heavy dependence on imported gasoline. This dependence could be used by the United States to peacefully create decisive leverage over the Islamic Republic.  In recent months, Iran has, according to the respected trade publication International Oil Daily and other sources including the U.S. government, purchased nearly all of this gasoline from just five companies, four of them European: the Swiss firm Vitol; the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura; the French firm Total; British Petroleum; and one Indian company, Reliance Industries. If these companies stopped supplying Iran, the Iranians could replace only some of what they needed from other suppliers -- and at a significantly higher price. Neither Russia nor China could serve as alternative suppliers. Both are themselves also heavily dependent on imports of the type of gasoline Iran needs.

>>>
News Goffer

The gasoline option

by News Goffer on

Yes, this might cripple the Iranian industry, transportation, and power supply.  But it will also hurt the Iranian people.  The true Achilles' heel of IRI is not gasoline imports as the author suggests.  It is the situation of human rights in Iran.  If hotshots wrote articles in big papers putting pressure on IRI for its human rights record, they will be helping the people of Iran.



Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

Poultry Farming!

by Payman (not verified) on

So the “logic” of this argument is that a gasoline embargo will result in shortage of fuel and this would bring down Iran’s economy since Iran imports “60%” of its fuel!?!?!?!... wow! I suppose some people think Iran is a medium size chicken farm which can be brought to halt by cutting down its fuel supply.

Fist, wouldn’t Iran be able to develop new gasoline refineries, increase its reliance on LNG fuel, reduce the amount of smuggled fuel to its neighbors?

Second, if these companies don’t sell their fuel to Iran who would cover their losses?

Third, isn’t cutting down the economical interactions between Iran and the west counterproductive to the ultimate goal of better relationship between Iran and the west?
or maybe the goal, as The Economist puts it, is to devise a sanction “tough enough to make Iran sit up and blink.”

The bottom line is that lots of westerners have a very static view of Iran. None of their Iran “strategies” (duel containment, isolation, sanction, carrot and stick,... ) has ever worked because they have failed to accept one important fact:
Iranians are very capable and resourceful people who need to be treated with respect. No carrots, no sticks!


default

RE: Reality

by Toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

"It goes without saying, undeniable by anybody with the least bit of intelligence, that if Iran had a secular democratic system of government, with full transparency, accountable to its people, thinking first and foremost about their prosperity and future and the well being of the country, Iran would not have any of the problems she is having today!"

Yes, your 100% right, How stupid of me, if we had a centrist president, lets call him Hassan Obama (Or Mossadegh?), in a plural democracy wanting to do the following that is needed for our nations defence (se below) The british, french, and the US would just sit idly by and shake our hands. We have the 3 worlds largest oil reserve in a world where super powers and imperalists need energy in the energy poor future right were 3 continents meet:

Selling our oil and using it as a political equilibrium for our own strategic interests.

A strong missile deterrent with unofficial continental missile capability

Enrichment capability that can fast be converted to weapons grade if need be.

A strong navy that can rival the alien forces in the Persian Gulf.

An indigenous space program.

Binding deep military/economical agreements with Pakistan, Iraq, Arab countries etc.

Yes, you are so right, they would have let us do such things. Or maybe they would have told us to sit down, shut up and recieve like most of their "allies" do. Be it Mullah, Shah or Mossadegh, they dont want countries in that region to develop, it would be a strategic nightmare for them and their greed.


default

New Goffer: Good question.

by sickofiri (not verified) on

New Goffer: Good question. Why not write about the atrocities perpetrated by the regime. They wrote about shah's human right's abuses because they wanted him gone. They turned the international public opinions against him.

I think they don't highlight the IRI's human rights violation because they truly don't want the IRI overthrown; firstly,because this regime serves their interests on so many levels; secondly, if they turn the international public opinions against the IRI, then they can't make back door deals with him.

They brought this regime to power to keep the Middle Easterners ignorant, secterian, uneducated, uninformed, superstitious, radicalized (so they could sell their weapons), and backward.

Note:The IRI helped the US both in war against Afghanistan and Iraq.


default

To Toofanthe oncesogreat

by Reality sucks (not verified) on

You like all the ideologues, most of the rulers and supporters of the IR are suffering from extreme suspicion turned into paranoia combined with delusions of grandeur and megalomania. With that kind of mindset, I don't know how you guys can even approach America and establish good relations with her.

It goes without saying, undeniable by anybody with the least bit of intelligence, that if Iran had a secular democratic system of government, with full transparency, accountable to its people, thinking first and foremost about their prosperity and future and the well being of the country, Iran would not have any of the problems she is having today!


varjavand

Stupid Idea

by varjavand on

First who is he to determine that Iran’s nuclear program is illegal?

 

Second, even the US imports gasoline, nearly 9,000,000 gallons every day

 

It is a foolish idea. If implemented, its burden falls directly on Iranian people

 

 


default

Re: News Goffer

by Toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

It has never been about "the people of Iran".

Its about oil, geopolitical interests and brute military force.

Certain people on this forum believe that if we had a seuclar democratic country, we would be allowed to gain what the regime seeks today.

They are wrong. The goal of the british, russians and now the americans have always been to undermine Iran and its people.