[rangerone314]

In reading these threads I have noticed one glaring omission. Iran in the past has indicated that Saudi Arabia's oil infrastucture is high on it's list of primary targets in case they are attacked.

Actually, I was pretty sure I mentioned that Ras Tanura would make a great target for a few thousand ballistic missiles from Iran.

[eXpat]

In reading these threads I have noticed one glaring omission. Iran in the past has indicated that Saudi Arabia's oil infrastucture is high on it's list of primary targets in case they are attacked.

Actually, I was pretty sure I mentioned that Ras Tanura would make a great target for a few thousand ballistic missiles from Iran.

Imagine that, strait of Hormuz blocked and missiles over SA. Instant jump to $200 oil.

[careinke]

In reading these threads I have noticed one glaring omission. Iran in the past has indicated that Saudi Arabia's oil infrastucture is high on it's list of primary targets in case they are attacked.

Actually, I was pretty sure I mentioned that Ras Tanura would make a great target for a few thousand ballistic missiles from Iran.

Imagine that, strait of Hormuz blocked and missiles over SA. Instant jump to $200 oil.

I'm not sure in the long run, that this would be a bad thing. As long as we stayed out of the war.

[eXpat]

Carry on with the drums of war
UN Nuclear Agency Reports Failed Iran Talks

The U.N. nuclear agency on Wednesday acknowledged its renewed failure in trying to probe suspicions that Tehran has worked secretly on atomic arms, in a statement issued shortly after an Iranian general warned of a pre-emptive strike against any nation that threatens Iran.

The double signs of defiance reflected continued Iranian determination not to bow to demands that it defuse suspicions about its nuclear activities despite rapidly growing international sanctions imposed over its refusal to signal it is ready to compromise.

With the International Atomic Energy Agency already failing to dent Iranian stonewalling in talks that ended just three weeks ago, hopes had been muted that the latest effort would be any more successful even before the IAEA issued its statement.

The fact that the communique was issued early Wednesday, shortly after midnight and just after the IAEA experts left Tehran, reflected the urgency the agency attached to telling its side of the story.

As the two-day IAEA visit was winding down, Iranian officials sought to cast it in a positive light, with foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast telling reporters that "cooperation with the agency continues and is at its best level."

Beyond differing with that view, the language of the IAEA communique clearly — if indirectly — blamed Tehran for the lack of progress.

"We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," it quoted IAEA chief Yukiya Amano as saying.

The communique said that on both visits, Iran did not grant requests by the IAEA mission to visit Parchin — a military site thought to be used for explosives testing related to nuclear detonations, and cited Amano as calling this decision "disappointing."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nuke-agency-reports-failed-iran-talks-15761834#.T0Rc0Xm-aSp

[ItalyRules]

Iran Vows to Launch Preemptive Strike If Attack on Them Imminent

A top Iranian military commander said today that Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt it were about to be attacked.

"We do not wait for enemies to take action against us. We will use all our means to protect our national interests" said Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi. Deputy Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces.

"Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," Mr Hejazi told FARS.

Both Israel and the US have recently intensified rhetoric against Iran, saying an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear site is impending.

link

A few missiles could take out Ras Tanura and Abqaiq eliminating 50% of Saudi exports for at least 6 months, perhaps never to recover. Strike simultaneously at Yanbu and/or the east/west pipeline and you take out 100%. Add to that any oil fields in nations seen to be sided with the US ....

These targets are extremely vunerable to missile attack. The spigot to the world would be turned off. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons. They can bring the world to it's knees with conventional ones.

Iran could, at any moment, cut off 25% of US oil imports, abruptly, irrevocably. They have the capability.

All this talk about Iran closing the Strait of Homuz is to distract the Media from the real threat. A war with Iran could cut off a third of world oil production abruptly, and for an extended amount of time, by destroying the infrastructure.

What would the abrupt loss of a third of world oil production look like? Would that be fast collapse?

Could civilization last long enough for it to be restored?

How would it impact world food supplies?

My mind can't wrap around this. Could someone with a little more insight take a crack at what this would mean?

[Loki]

This “[insert country here] has WMDs, we have to do something right now!” thing sounds awfully familiar. I believe I read about it in the NYT some years ago, yellow birthday cake baked in aluminum tubes or some such thing, seem to recall there may have even been a war over it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on....the American voter?

Need I point out that Obama, despite my dislike of his policies generally speaking, is probably the main reason the Israeli war mongers haven't already started bombing? I have no doubt that a GOPer would have unleashed the hellhounds by now.

The “peace candidate” can't just go about bombing willy nilly, can he? He's gotta be subtle about it, take his time, and make sure he gets reelected before he sends in the B-1s. I wonder if his pet pit bull Hillary learned her lesson from the last time she supported naked aggression in the Middle East?

But perhaps a US war on Iran on behalf of Israel wouldn't be such a bad thing. A good, deep oil shock might give us Americans the bitch slap we so desperately need. Might even lead to the collapse of the Empire. Two birds with one stone.

Hell, I think I've convinced myself we need to bomb Iran, the sooner the better. I'm voting Santorum for pope, er, president this fall. Holy war bitches!

[SeaGypsy]

What would the abrupt loss of a third of world oil production look like? Would that be fast collapse?

Could civilization last long enough for it to be restored?

How would it impact world food supplies?

1/ almost a question which answers itself, the 3rd world.

2/ define collapse? Or redefine staving off collapse more likely. A hell of a crash as most business models can't cop that fast a run up in core cost pricing.

3/ no way is loss of 1/3rd enough to 'destroy civilization', most likely this shortage will come in the next 10 years regardless if everyone made happy in the ME; maybe sooner as growth in exporting economies pushes internal use higher faster.

[Keith_McClary]

generally speaking, the rest of the Muslim world hate Iran with a burning passion. The Saudis in particular can't wait for Israel to bomb Iran.

Depends who you ask:

1.png

The emirs and sultans may have different opinions than their loyal subjects.

[Keith_McClary]

Preston it will clear up a lot of traffic. But if there is no traffic then their will be no money in speeding tickets. The highway patrol may be grounded.

If there is less traffic it might become possible to speed. What is your average speed during "rush hours".

[Serial_Worrier]

The Republican Senate is Likud-West.

[Roryrules]

What would the abrupt loss of a third of world oil production look like? Would that be fast collapse?

Could civilization last long enough for it to be restored?

How would it impact world food supplies?

My mind can't wrap around this. Could someone with a little more insight take a crack at what this would mean?

The Iranians won't shut the Strait of Hormuz because it would be an act of national suicide. Not only would they be cutting off their only real source of foreign currency from their own oil exports, but they'd manage to simultaneously piss off just about every nation in the world. There'd be a UN taskforce dispatched to re-open the Strait within days.

Nevertheless, suppose they did. Ok, they'd cut off a substantial chunk of the world's oil supply for at least a few weeks before the rest of the world kicked their asses. In that time oil prices would go through the roof and there'd be financial and economic turmoil.

However, civilisation would not collapse. Just about all developed nations have Strategic Petroleum Reserves which could cover the shortfall in global oil supply. So while oil would suddenly become very dear it wouldn't vanish. In other words, the lights would stay on, but the economy would probably tank.

[Roryrules]

generally speaking, the rest of the Muslim world hate Iran with a burning passion. The Saudis in particular can't wait for Israel to bomb Iran.

Depends who you ask:

1.png

The emirs and sultans may have different opinions than their loyal subjects.

And if you look closely, the survey says it's only including the responses of those who think that Iran has peaceful intentions. If you believe that then you're hardly likely to support suspending Iran's nuclear programme.

In any case, fortunately for the West, most of the Middle East is not at all democratic. What the average Arab on the street thinks is quite frankly irrelevant.

[ItalyRules]

Real helpful. NOT. You didn't even read what was posted. They have the capability to take out 1/3 of the world's oil production. The are faced with an existential threat.

[ItalyRules]

Iran Vows to Launch Preemptive Strike If Attack on Them Imminent

A top Iranian military commander said today that Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt it were about to be attacked.

"We do not wait for enemies to take action against us. We will use all our means to protect our national interests" said Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi. Deputy Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces.

"Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," Mr Hejazi told FARS.

Both Israel and the US have recently intensified rhetoric against Iran, saying an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear site is impending.

link

A few missiles could take out Ras Tanura and Abqaiq eliminating 50% of Saudi exports for at least 6 months, perhaps never to recover. Strike simultaneously at Yanbu and/or the east/west pipeline and you take out 100%. Add to that any oil fields in nations seen to be sided with the US ....

These targets are extremely vunerable to missile attack. The spigot to the world would be turned off. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons. They can bring the world to it's knees with conventional ones.

Iran could, at any moment, cut off 25% of US oil imports, abruptly, irrevocably. They have the capability.

All this talk about Iran closing the Strait of Homuz is to distract the Media from the real threat. A war with Iran could cut off a third of world oil production abruptly, and for an extended amount of time, by destroying the infrastructure.

What would the abrupt loss of a third of world oil production look like? Would that be fast collapse?

Could civilization last long enough for it to be restored?

How would it impact world food supplies?

My mind can't wrap around this. Could someone with a little more insight take a crack at what this would mean?

Don't give me this everything is fine and nobody would do nothing crap. That is BS. We have a nation being threatened with extinction, in terms of what they are now. Being threatened by the most powerful nations in the world. Who have created a capability to strike back, or even strike first.

They are not going to do nothing.

[radon]

Don't give me this everything is fine and nobody would do nothing crap. That is BS. We have a nation being threatened with extinction, in terms of what they are now. Being threatened by the most powerful nations in the world. Who have created a capability to strike back, or even strike first.

They are not going to do nothing.

They are indeed an ancient sophisticated nation. Lots of reasonable rational people. Why wouldn't they themselves stop making existential threats to Israel? Express condemnation, non-recognition of territory claims etc. But why making existential threats, which to many at the outside world look,so to say, not very rational? If they revoked those threats, at the very least, they would expose their foes for what they are.

[Roryrules]

Real helpful. NOT. You didn't even read what was posted.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but yes, I did read your post.

They have the capability to take out 1/3 of the world's oil production.

Yes, I mentioned that. And if they did the rest of the world would quickly turn on them and eliminate them. In the mean time the shortfall in capacity would be met by large withdrawals from the SPRs.

The are faced with an existential threat.

No, Iran's continued existence isn't currently threatened. That might change if they don't stop their nuclear weapons programme.

[vision-master]

No, Iran's continued existence isn't currently threatened. That might change if they don't stop their nuclear weapons programme.

Show me where Iran say's nuclear weapons?

[Roryrules]

No, Iran's continued existence isn't currently threatened. That might change if they don't stop their nuclear weapons programme.

Show me where Iran say's nuclear weapons?

You mean the weapons programme that they've been lying about, despite the IAEA's findings?

[eXpat]

No, Iran's continued existence isn't currently threatened. That might change if they don't stop their nuclear weapons programme.

Show me where Iran say's nuclear weapons?

You mean the weapons programme that they've been lying about, despite the IAEA's findings?

You mean like Israel???

[Roryrules]

You mean like Israel???

Yes. What's your point?