Slashdot Mirror
EU Moves To Ban Iran Crude Oil
rtoz writes with this snippet from the BBC: "EU member states have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian crude oil to put pressure on the country over its nuclear programme. ... The US, which recently imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, welcomed the news. ... The Iranian state gets more than half of its revenue through the export of crude oil, says the BBC's James Reynolds. If Europe does stop buying, Iran will have to turn to countries in Asia to replace its lost trade, who will demand a discount, he adds."
The EU nations import 8.5 million barrels a day. USA: 13.5. Japan: 5.5. China: 4.5. South Korea: 2.5. Get *all* of those nations to ban Iran crude and you'll substantially affect Iranian prices for the worse (and prices within the embargoing nations for the worse, too). Just EU? Meh. EU plus USA? Still meh since in fact most of the current USA's imports come from the Americas. But EU, USA, Japan, SKorea? Now we're talking. As Iran goes further and further down the list of importing nations they start having to deal with shipping into smaller ports, into ports which can't take as much oil as quickly, etc. Less efficient transactions and less efficient shipping, and potentially for a lower base price because the countries agreeing to buy Iranian oil will have negotiating leverage.
In the mean time, it wouldn't be the worst thing for each of the potentially embargoing nations to figure out how to reduce the oil required for each unit of GDP, health, or any other metric of "goodness" that the nation uses. After all, an oil embargo hurts both trade partners, but reducing demand hurts the seller and improves conditions for the (former) buyer.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Consider the issues with religious extremism in the Middle East, and compare that with our own issues with religious extremism during The Crusades.
Now, imagine that we had nukes back then. The world would have either been Christian or irradiated. This is why we're not happy about Iran, South Korea, Iraq etc having WMDs in this period of their civilisations' evolution; They need their Enlightenment first, and the Arab Spring is the start.
Religion still plays a significant part of their political climates, and a fundamentalist with their finger on a world-ending bomb is nobody's idea of a happy Christmas. Unfortunately, the only way we can try and stop these people from getting such cataclysmically lethal weaponry (short of turning the place to glass) is to stop buying their crap so they get really poor and have to end their nuclear programmes. Hey, it's better than sending our sons over to be maimed by a roadside bomb, right?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
China not a threat? I would call BS. They have been a major threat to the US since they found they are good at wars by proxy. The Korean war was a stalemate. The Vietnam conflict was an easy victory for them. Other places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries where insurgents "mysteriously" get ammo and explosives from somewhere also show this.
Look how they killed the solar industry in the US. Six months ago, /. had the articles about how sites belonging to energy companies were being hacked. Then a few months ago came the solar panel dumping for less than the cost of making them. Now we are sans a complete industry because of this, and MORE dependent on oil/gas while they are happily building the latest, safest nuclear reactors and getting off of coal.
Look how they are securing rare earths and other resources.
China is smart, and extremely brutal. They know that a couple shipments of C4 that mysteriously wind up in a bunch of insurgent hands go a lot further than sending PLA troops in a region. This is how they can win a battle in a theater of conflict without a single member of the Han race ever firing a shot.
China is doing a damn good job at keeping the US stuck on fighting in shithole countries to keep the foreign oil flowing while they are going to a post oil economy.
The EU is going to ban Iranian oil, fine. They are also proposing to ban Canadian oil, ok. But if you start alienating countries that have large reserves of oil, where the hell do you think you are going to get your oil from in the future? If Iran stops is nuclear programs under these sanctions or Canada finds more efficient less polluting ways of extracting oil from tar sands, then why would they return to doing business with the EU? There are larger markets then the EU out there that are not so finicky.
Not a week goes by that I don't hear about another stupid decision made by the EU in one shape or another which limits consumer rights and under the EU "protection", most EU countries are entering bankruptcy.
So why do Europeans put up with it?
Do only people outside the EU understand it is a epic disaster?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Actually from what i have read. That is true with one exception. The one exception is a new one. Is that during all out war nukes are tolerable. from Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121212653433219.html In the 1980s, the revolutionary leaders of the new Islamic Republic of Iran swore off weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as un-Islamic. During the course of the war, however, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, spurring Ayatollah Khomeini to reverse his position and restart the country's chemical weapons programme. In the process, Khomeini established the philosophical foundation for a key principle within the Islamic Republic known as "maslahat-e nizam" or "expediency of the system", by which the needs of the Islamic Republic as a political institution might trump even Islamic law. This suggests that Iran's commitments not to develop WMD in the early 1980s carried an implicit understanding that the religious prohibition on such weapons does not necessarily apply in a state of war. So far, Tehran's leaders have declared that they have no interest in nuclear weapons, citing the same religious opposition as before. The US intelligence community has repeatedly assessed that if Iran wanted to develop atomic bombs, it has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to do so. Then why hasn't Iran put its technical know-how to use building up a nuclear arsenal? Experts widely agree that Tehran has yet to form a consensus in favour of actually building the bomb, and in the absence of such a consensus prefers merely to keep the option open for the future. Whether or not Iran builds a nuclear weapon, then, will be based on Tehran's cost-benefit calculation. Fundamentally, the future of Iran's nuclear programme will be decided within the context of Iran's larger foreign policy strategy, which Iran's leaders have characterised as a policy of responding to pressure with pressure. Therefore, the easiest way for Iran to arrive at a consensus in favour of building nuclear weapons would be in response to a provocation from the West.
It's amusing how some people still think we went into Iraq because S. Hussein was an evil dictator, or that we helped get rid of M. Khadafi for the same reason. The popular media seem resistant to portray these things for what they are: taking control of Third World petroleum industries. Iran is the last redoubt in the middle east not yet in bed with or controlled by international petroleum mobsters. Venezuela is the last in the western hemisphere, and it is no coincidence at all that H. Chavez is demonized as an evil dictator as well. It is an industrial pattern every bit as stereotyped as any software design pattern, and it works just as well.
Yes, we are headed for another decade of perpetual war for perpetual peace in order that the mobsters who rule the First World can take control of small nations' wealth and resources. For the rubes, it's all about saving the world from Iran's evil dictators having a few nukes. Suckers.