Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran Threatens To Use 'Oil Weapon' In Nuclear Standoff (8-7-2006)
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 8-7-2006 | Simon Tisdall

Posted on 08/06/2006 4:17:54 PM PDT by blam

Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' in nuclear standoff

· Energy crisis would leave people 'shivering in cold'
· UN deadline looms for Tehran to accept deal

Simon Tisdall in Tehran
Monday August 7, 2006
The Guardian (UK)

Iran warned Britain and the US yesterday that the international community could face a new oil crisis if the United Nations security council imposes sanctions on Tehran over its alleged attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons-making capability. Speaking in Tehran, Ali Larijani, the country's chief nuclear negotiator and head of the supreme national security council, said Iran would be reluctant to cut its oil exports. "We do not want to use the oil weapon. It is them who would impose it upon us."

But Mr Larijani added that if the west did decide on sanctions, "we will react in a way that would be painful for them ... Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold." Iran is the world's fourth largest oil exporter and is estimated to have the second largest oil and gas reserves.

Global energy prices could be expected to reach new highs if Tehran's threat is carried out - although analysts point out that one of the first economic casualties might be Iran itself.

Urged on by Britain, the US, France and Germany, the UN security council passed a resolution last week imposing a deadline of August 31 for Iran to accept a western package of incentives in return for suspending uranium enrichment at its Natanz facility, or face the prospect of political, economic and financial sanctions.

Mr Larijani rejected the resolution as "illegal" and said Iran would not abide by the deadline. He reiterated Tehran's argument, repeated during the course of three years of largely fruitless negotiations with. . .

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; iran; nuclear; oil; proliferation; standoff; threatens; unres1696; use; weapon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: avacado
80% of Iran's GDP is from oil exports. If they cut them, they cut themselves.

I suggest they are thinking about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and not just stopping their own export.

21 posted on 08/06/2006 4:36:36 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

Blah...Blah....Blah....


22 posted on 08/06/2006 4:38:17 PM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

they would flood anti ship missiles into oil tankers there. and as we saw with the strike on the israeli destroyer - hitting oil tankers with those missiles will be very easy.


23 posted on 08/06/2006 4:38:21 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam

I recommend we use nukes as weapons and set the oil on fire.

We will survive and have survived worse.


24 posted on 08/06/2006 4:40:18 PM PDT by Maelstorm (One man's scam is another's Las Vegas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

The Strait of Hormuz would be reopened by force. It might take a month, and the world oil supply would be interrupted considerably. The worst hurt would be in China and Japan, then in Europe.


25 posted on 08/06/2006 4:41:03 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

And remember they say they now have a super fast torpedo (223 mph) against which there is no defense. See this link for a tad of info...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm


26 posted on 08/06/2006 4:42:08 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
But it might take some time to clear it depending on how they are dug in.

I think they would expect Europe and China to pressure the U.S. and Israel to ceasefire in Leb and the Strait...and they would "let the spice flow."
27 posted on 08/06/2006 4:45:36 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
But it might take some time to clear it depending on how they are dug in.

Oops...you said that didn't you. Sorry. Shouldn't read and chew food.

28 posted on 08/06/2006 4:47:15 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

>Bet we'd get serious abiyt drilling Alaska, off Florida & California, refine more shale oil, use more clean coal technology...<

And about time, too!


29 posted on 08/06/2006 4:48:39 PM PDT by Paperdoll (........Washington Staters, Vote for McGavick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

It would be an act of war and could well receive a warlike response. Both Japan and China would demand action. Europe, who knows. An ultimatum would be issued immediately with a short deadline. Then the blockade would be relieved.


30 posted on 08/06/2006 4:49:22 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Time to take out the nuclear facilities and parliment all at the same time.


31 posted on 08/06/2006 4:51:16 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (http://www.busateripens.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Time to take out the nuclear facilities and parliment all at the same time.


32 posted on 08/06/2006 4:51:24 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (http://www.busateripens.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

>We will survive and have survived worse<


I've always wanted my very own horse. :o)


33 posted on 08/06/2006 4:51:35 PM PDT by Paperdoll (........Washington Staters, Vote for McGavick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Yes it would be character building if not butt callusing.


34 posted on 08/06/2006 4:57:44 PM PDT by Maelstorm (One man's scam is another's Las Vegas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Yep.

I wonder what Iran thinks the end game would look like. I wonder if they are planning to have Russia (and maybe China) to cover their backs while they take over the Saudi and Kuwaiti wells.

35 posted on 08/06/2006 4:58:50 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Saudi thinks Iran would seize Saudi oilfields given the chance. China would not want the supply interrupted, and China does not have enough military power to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by themselves. The US and GB will act in their stead. Russia cannot afford anything but nuke threats.


36 posted on 08/06/2006 5:03:00 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia

That only works if the whole world goes along. As the third largest exporter, how many customers do they need? China, by proxy N. Korea, Africa, lets throw in France because they would sell out anyone for a Franc. They will get market value for their product even if the all-powerfull UN drafts a new worthless resolution.
That said, we should tax the crap out of gasoline here to reflect the external cost of the product. A real pain in the rectal opening until we all drive a little more fuel economical vehicles and put a nuclear reactor in every community. The cost of petroleum products is far greater that just transport, refining and materials costs. Oil costs us dearly in the sense of national security and environmental costs.


37 posted on 08/06/2006 5:07:08 PM PDT by When do we get liberated? ((Multi-culturism, go for a dirt nap. If you cant stand behind our troops, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: When do we get liberated?
the external cost

Good term.

38 posted on 08/06/2006 5:08:24 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Oil tankers recieve a hit better than destroyers. They are larger, thicker skinned and the missile rarely ignites the crude. These are not ships full of 87 octane gasoline


39 posted on 08/06/2006 5:08:43 PM PDT by When do we get liberated? ((Multi-culturism, go for a dirt nap. If you cant stand behind our troops, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: avacado

They won't have any GDP to worry about...their oil fields will be irradiated.


40 posted on 08/06/2006 5:09:51 PM PDT by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson