Who thinks Obama and Brown are going to head up a strike on Iran any time soon ?

[BrilloPad]

Good doom Brillo. Certainly made me think. I will fashion myself a tinfoil hat and see what prisonplanet.com has to say on the matter as I have no opinions of my own.

If anyone could post some opinions for me to take on board as fact, I would be most appreciative.

1. SY02 is always right
2. Buy some put options......

HTH

[suityou01]

It's getting a bit testy in eyeran now

Iran missile tests stoke tensions

Iran has tested two short-range missiles and announced plans for a controversial long-range missile test, state TV reports.

It says the short-range missiles were the Tondar and Fateh, with a reported range of up to 170km (100 miles).

Tehran said it would test a long-range Shahab-3 missile, believed to be capable of reaching Israel, on Monday.

The tests come amid mounting tensions between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The tests are likely to be seen as a gesture of defiance by Iran, says the BBC's Tehran correspondent, Jon Leyne.

This could get messy. More worried about this than Pakistan tbh.

[TimberWolf]

Should the Eyeranians be foolish enough to use their one weapon against Israel, they'd disappear in a sheet of glass.

The Israelis are estimated to have 200 warheads.

And, under those circumstances, they'd use a fair few.

9,960

[suityou01]

I watched this "hypothetical" scenario on youtube, and I feel much better about the whole thing.

Linky

[GreenerGrass]

The "Stratfor" posts on marketoracle.co.uk have some good summaries of geopolitics here, there should be a new one this week in light of the new "secret" facility and the announcement about long range missile tests.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13499.html

And from
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13656.html

Iran: The U.S. Strategic Obsession


The Islamic world has been the focus of the United States since 9/11. In this context, the development of an Iranian nuclear capability was seen as a fundamental threat to U.S. national interests. The obvious response was a military strike to destroy Iranian power, but both the Bush and Obama administrations hesitated to take the step.


First, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be no one-day affair. Intelligence on precise locations had uncertainty built into it, and any strike would consist of multiple phases: destroying Iran’s air force and navy, destroying Iran’s anti-aircraft capability to guarantee total command of the skies, the attacks on the nuclear facilities themselves, analysis of the damage, perhaps a second wave, and of course additional attacks to deal with any attempted Iranian retaliation. The target set would be considerable, and would extend well beyond the targets directly related to the nuclear program, making such an operation no simple matter.
Second, Iran has the ability to respond in a number of ways. One is unleashing terrorist attacks worldwide via Hezbollah. But the most significant response would be blocking the Strait of Hormuz using either anti-ship missiles or naval mines. The latter are more threatening largely because the clearing operation could take a considerable period and it would be difficult to know when you had cleared all of the mines. Tankers and their loads are worth about $170 million at current prices, and that uncertainty could cause owners to refuse the trip. Oil exports could fall dramatically, and the effect on the global economy — particularly now amid the global financial crisis — could be absolutely devastating. Attacking Iran would be an air-sea battle, and could even include limited ground forces inserted to ensure that the nuclear facilities were destroyed.


The country most concerned with all of this is Israel. The Iranians had given every indication that they plan to build a nuclear capability and use it against Israel. Israel’s vulnerability to such a strike is enormous, and there are serious questions about Israel’s ability to use the threat of a counterstrike as a deterrent to such a strike. In our view, Iran is merely creating a system to guarantee regime survival, but given the tenor of Tehran’s statements, Israel cannot afford to take this view complacently.


Israel could unilaterally draw the United States into an airstrike on Iran. Were Israel to strike Iran by any means, it most likely would lack the ability to conduct an extended air campaign. And the United States could not suffer the consequences of airstrikes without the benefits of taking out Iran’s nuclear program. Apart from the political consequences, the U.S. Navy would be drawn into the suppression of Iranian naval capabilities in the Persian Gulf whether it wanted to or not simply to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Even if Iran didn’t act to close off the strait, Washington would have to assume that it might, an eventuality it could not afford. So an Israeli attack would likely draw in the United States against Iran one way or another. The United States has had no appetite for such an eventuality, particularly since it considers a deliverable Iranian nuclear weapon a ways off. The U.S. alternative — in both administrations — was diplomatic.

Ironically Iran is dependent on petrol imports, as they have crap refining capacity. This could have been one bit of strong leverage the West had, but now China (as we know the main holder of US dollar debt) is supplying them with petrol it's difficult to see where all this brinkmanship will lead.

[AtW]

Ironically Iran is dependent on petrol imports, as they have crap refining capacity.

You'd imagine that a country with a lot of oil and gas would focus on this goal, rather than trying to get "peaceful" nuclear energy.

[GreenerGrass]

You'd also think a country trying to persuade others that it's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful might think twice about announcing a long range missile test within 24 hours of a secret facility being found.

[Paddy]

You'd imagine that a country with a lot of oil and gas would focus on this goal, rather than trying to get "peaceful" nuclear energy.

It’s a daft as the UK importing coal at a more expensive price that it can produce at home.

The regime in Iran will not get passed the next election but if they are attack the regime might survive bu uniting the country. The US needs enemies and they may not want a popular democratic government in Iran at the next election, an attack now will keep the US arms industry going for a few more years.

[AtW]

It’s a daft as the UK importing coal at a more expensive price that it can produce at home.

Analogy is not correct - Iran lacks refining facilities so they have to export oil and buy back expensive petrol, at least UK can refine oil it gets. In any case country with acute petrol shortages would be expected to invest money it earns from exporting oil into getting capability to get refining capability rather than try to get risky nuclear "peaceful" energy.

What makes you think UK coal is cheaper anyway? AFAIK most coal mines are closed here and I don't see many willing people to reopen them.

The regime in Iran will not get passed the next election

Elections there is just a choice between one or the other faction that follow the same path - the Supreme Leader there determines the main course of the country, it's just a question if they get moderate crazies or extreme crazies (like now).

[minestrone]

Iran is not a tin pot country. And even if it was - like Zimbabwe, then why should I prevented to have opinion formed about Mugabe on the basis of his actions there?

I said Iran had a tin pot dictator, not a tin pot country. But then again you come from a tin pot country with a long line of tin pot dictators so you are hardly an objective witness.