Dangerous mix: Iranian oil and U.S. sanctions
cnn
03-Jan-2012 (10 comments)


CNN) -- Iran has threatened that it will retaliate against the Obama administration's proposed new economic sanctions on Iran's oil exports by blocking the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. "If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil," said Iran's Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz," the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes through daily.

To drive the point home, Iran has started a 10-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to show off how it could use small speedboats and a barrage of missiles to combat America's naval armada. And the U.S. Navy has responded, in the words of a spokeswoman: "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."

>>>
Darius Kadivar

Vali Nasr's Take

by Darius Kadivar on

Editor's note: Vali Nasr is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University and senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.


Share/Save/Bookmark

 
vildemose

IRI's current bellicose

by vildemose on

IRI's current bellicose rhetoric should leave no doubt in the minds anyone that its possession of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. I really think the IRI while  slowly going down its making more mistakes.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


AMIR1973

Vildemose jaan

by AMIR1973 on

Cole holds some decent positions (e.g. supporting the overthrow of Qaddafi), but I read him sceptically on Iran. For example, he is reassured that the IRI would never develop nuclear weapons because Khamenei has supposedly stated that nuclear weapons are "haram" or unIslamic (I'm not sure if killing, rape, and torture have also been decreed as being "haram"). As far as sanctions, he seems to imply that they will NOT have much impact on the IRI, but WILL cause the U.S. and world economy to grind to a halt and thereby jeopardize Obama's chances of re-election. Really?


vildemose

Amir jaan: wow, I had no

by vildemose on

Amir jaan: wow, I had no idea..I'm appalled. 

 A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


AMIR1973

Dear Vildemose,

by AMIR1973 on

As to why the good Prof Cole may be opposed to sanctions against the IRI:

http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_cole


G. Rahmanian

But

by G. Rahmanian on

I was under the impression IR always welcomed sanctions! And to IR wars are only God''s blessings!


vildemose

Juan Cole's take on the

by vildemose on

Juan Cole's take on the sanctions is much worse:

 http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/will-his-new-sanctions-on-iran-cost-obama-the-presidency.html

 A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


AMIR1973

DK jaan

by AMIR1973 on

You make a good observation. Some people have a talent for speaking with both sides of their mouths, and Brother Nasr seems to fall into that category. For what it's worth, the notion that sanctions are a mere prelude to war is a line that some IRI-friendly commentators have been taking (in order to justify their opposition to sanctions). Regards.


Darius Kadivar

I hope For Nasr own Sake that he's aware that he is no Hitchens

by Darius Kadivar on

It's Easy to make Politically Correct Assessments like in this article but Not everyone has the Intellectual Courage and Wit of a Hitchens You Know ...  

Hitchens Interrupts Vali Nasr to respond to Bill Maher on Show: 


Darius Kadivar

Vali Nasr say's One thing then concludes the exact opposite

by Darius Kadivar on

He First Say's: Sanctioning Iran's oil industry will cripple Iran's economy, and that in turn will threaten the stability of the clerical regime

"The Obama administration has ruled out military strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program in favor of tougher sanctions, which,once signed by the president, and if fully implemented, would sharply reduce Iran's oil revenue. The administration sees this added pressure on Iran'sfragile economy as an effective alternative to military strikes.

 

If Iran's reaction is any indication, the administrationis correct in its estimation. Sanctioning Iran's oil industry will cripple Iran's economy, and that in turn will threaten the stability of the clerical regime. It is for this reason that Iran is treating the proposed newsanctions as an act of war, and is issuing threats of its own to dissuade theUnited States from going through with the new sanctions."  

 

 

But Concludes: but because sanctions designed as the alternative to military action end up hastening its advent. 

 

 

"Those advocating new sanctions on Iran's oil industry have said little about the potential cost to the global economy. The cutoff would also hurt Gulf Cooperation Council countries and could drag them into a conflict with Iranthey have thus far avoided. Iran hopes its saber-rattling will persuade Asia's economic power houses and Persian Gulf emirates to pressure Washington to back away from the new sanctions.

War between the U.S. and Iran may very well start, not if and when Washington decides to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, but because sanctions designed as the alternative to military action end up hastening its advent.That might prove to be the least desired outcome, for no better reason than the possibility that the first casualty of another war in the Middle East might very well be economic recovery in U.S. and Europe."

 


Make Up Your Mind Man ... Isn't that what they pay you for in those Think Tanks ?