It is looking more and more like this is going to get down to business pretty soon.
Iran is going to get what they have been trying to provoke for years now, a fight with Israel and with the US.
Seems like it to me anyway.
Printable View
It is looking more and more like this is going to get down to business pretty soon.
Iran is going to get what they have been trying to provoke for years now, a fight with Israel and with the US.
Seems like it to me anyway.
Volume. 11349
Iran, Russia discuss ‘step-by-step’ plan
Political Desk
On Line: 20 January 2012 17:00
In Print: Saturday 21 January 2012
http://tehrantimes.com/images/M_images/printButton.png http://tehrantimes.com/images/M_images/emailButton.png
Font Size http://tehrantimes.com/plugins/conte...ze/font_up.gif http://tehrantimes.com/plugins/conte.../font_down.gif
http://tehrantimes.com/cache/multith..._21_02_am7.jpgTEHRAN – Ali Baqeri, the deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed various aspects of the Russian proposal for a “step-by-step” plan toward Iran’s nuclear program during a meeting in Moscow on January 19.
On July 13, 2011, Russia made a proposal for a step-by-step approach, according to which Iran could address questions about its nuclear program and be rewarded with a gradual easing of sanctions.
In the meeting, the Iranian official also said that the dialogue-pressure approach toward Iran, which has been adopted by some major powers, does not work.
Iran believes that it is the dialogue-cooperation approach which could be fruitful and result in a win-win situation, he said.
He also highlighted the role of Russia in the new round of talks between Tehran and the 5+1 group (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany), which is expected to be held in Turkey in the near future.
On Tehran-Moscow bilateral relations, Baqeri said cooperation between Iran and Russia could guarantee stability in the region.
Pointing to the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, he said that the world believes that those politicians who have repeatedly said that all options are on the table to curb Iran’s nuclear activities are first and foremost responsible for these terrorist incidents.
The Russian foreign minister also criticized certain Western countries for adopting a confrontational approach toward the Islamic Republic and a praised Iran for continuing its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Lavrov added that Russia will make every effort to ensure the success of the new round of talks between Iran and the six major powers.
After meeting with Russian officials, Baqeri headed for China to discuss Iran’s nuclear issue with Chinese officials.
- Published 05:51 20.01.12
- Latest update 05:51 20.01.12
U.S. determined to avert an Israeli strike on Iran, be it with a rebuke or an embrace
Washington is crowing about sanctions on Iran working and Jerusalem is downplaying the chances of an attack. Yet tensions from the Strait of Hormuz to Jerusalem are rising and everybody involved is still on edge.
By Amos Harel
Get Haaretz on iPhone
Get Haaretz on Android
The international media have adopted an all-encompassing script regarding the Persian Gulf: Israel is determined to bomb Iran, and the U.S. is doing everything in its power to restrain the Netanyahu government. Every report about new developments in the gulf, from a war of words over the Strait of Hormuz to magnetic bombs in central Tehran, is wedged into this pre-determined narrative of an impending military confrontation.
Speculation has heightened over the last two weeks, as reports continue to emerge from Israel, Iran and the U.S. First came the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist, and then the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. President Barack Obama tried to calm down Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; then came the decision to defer a joint Israeli-American military exercise for a few months, along with the news of the visit to Israel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who arrived yesterday.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak was drafted on Wednesday to allay anxieties. In an Army Radio interview, Barak declared: "We haven't reached a decision to undertake [an attack on Iran]. We haven't set a date for reaching a decision. Everything is in the distance. I don't think we should deal with this as though it were going to happen tomorrow." Even the Kadima primaries, scheduled for March 27, "will happen before this," Barak added, a nod to the opposition party, which set its primary date just a few hours before. "I don't think that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is coming to pressure Israel. All of the handling of our relations with the United States comes out a little distorted in the media."
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1...3452209460.jpg An Iranian soldier during a drill near the Strait of Hormuz.
Photo by: Reuters
A few hours after Barak's interview, a top State Department official in Washington gathered Israeli journalists for an unusual briefing. Her message: International sanctions led by the Obama administration against Iran are working. They have already caused real damage to the Iranian economy, and they will be stiffened during the coming year, she said. Concurrently, the U.S. is working to enlarge oil reserves around the world, and to pressure large oil-consuming nations, such as India and China, into curtailing their oil imports from Tehran.
Taken together with Gen. Dempsey's first visit, undertaken just four months after he assumed his post, along with the stream of top officials who have arrived here since the summer, it is hard not to conclude that the Americans are worried.
Cause for anxiety
The official American stance of total opposition to an Israeli attack on Iran has not changed, certainly not under present circumstances. U.S. tactics, however, have changed. In a San Francisco forum two months ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained why an Israeli attack, which would be also be viewed as an American strike, would be a bad idea. Panetta referred to concerns about rises in oil prices, which would hurt the pockets of American consumers during a presidential election year.
He also estimated that the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites would not delay the nuclear project by more than a year or two.
Panetta assumed that his comments were off the record. After they were leaked, Washington changed its orientation, from one of implicitly rebuking Jerusalem to one of embracing Israel's leadership. Now the Americans are talking about fulfilling a joint objective while working shoulder-to-shoulder; once again, they are hinting about a military option, and speaking effusively about the success of the sanctions.
The Americans' ultimate objective seems to remain constant: They want to stop Israel from attacking during the coming months. The U.S. respects Israel's sovereignty, and its right to self-defense, as Barak stridently notes; yet the string of warnings issued by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan about intentions harbored by Netanyahu and Barak surely sent alarm bells ringing in Washington.
It can be assumed that the Americans have other information and intelligence sources that have given them reasons to worry.
Barak told Army Radio that Obama is providing "unprecedented support" to Israel, and is assisting its defense more than his predecessors. He hinted that the U.S. president is also "prepared for other options."
All parts of the defense minister's analysis are correct, yet the deep loathing that Netanyahu incurred in the Obama administration by deploying stalling tactics for three years on the Palestinian track cannot be discounted.
The Obama White House appears to suspect that Israeli willingness to launch an attack this year does not stem only from the Iranians' progress in installation of centrifuges in the underground facility near Qom. There is also a feeling that Netanyahu and Barak reason that the U.S. president will not risk losing the Jewish vote in an election year by precipitating a diplomatic fracas with Israel's leadership.
Springtime strike
The passage of time is also having an effect on the chances of an attack. Western analysts believe that winter clouds above Iran mean that an effective strike against the country's nuclear facilities could not be undertaken at least until March. The fear of an Israeli attack on Iran, which saturated international media until the end of autumn, is making its way back to the headlines as spring gets a little closer. The level of agreement between Israel and Western states regarding Iran's intentions and the pace of its nuclear program's advance is wider than it has been in the past.
Israeli officials regarded last November's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency as confirmation of their assumption that Iran is active on the military track in an effort to attain nuclear strike capability.
Based on this shared assessment, Israel continues to send aggressive signals. Netanyahu's appearance at the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff forum, flanked by senior officers, should be seen as one such signal.
The threat of a strike is supposed to serve two purposes: In theory, it ups the ante, provoking more substantive international action against Iran (because unless measures are taken, those crazy Israelis will attack ), and it improves the IDF's operational readiness. The problem is that prolonged preparations for an action in Iran pull the Israel Air Force in all sorts of directions, and they come at the expense of IDF preparation for other possible scenarios.
The final decision is in Netanyahu's hands, and is subject to a cabinet vote. Yet Barak exerts considerable influence on the prime minister.
Netanyahu currently enjoys considerable strength in the domestic political arena, and sometimes his popularity translates into acts of hubris. A number of factors - the realization of the Shalit prisoner-exchange deal, Netanyahu's rise in popularity, and the apparent lack of serious political rivals in Likud, or in other parties - have political analysts wondering how the prime minister will comport himself. Will Netanyahu be goaded into trying an attack on Iran, or, conversely, will his political ascendancy lead him to think that he should not endanger his popularity?
The Barak riddle
At least two retired IDF major generals, both of whom worked closely with Netanyahu in the past, believe that despite his deep ideological commitment (the prime minister talks about an Iranian bomb as though it poses a threat of a second holocaust of the Jewish people ), Netanyahu will not take the risk of launching a strike against Iran in the absence of consent of, and coordination with, the Obama administration.
The defense minister, on the other hand, remains an enigma wrapped within a riddle. Only total cynics believe that his intensive involvement of the Iranian issue is motivated by a desire to rise to the top of Likud's list. As Barak ages (next month he will turn 70 ), interviews with him, particularly in the electronic media, become more interesting. His interview on Army Radio was particularly revealing, as was an interview he did with CNN in November where he declared that less than a year remained to stop the Iranian nuclear program from reaching its objective.
That interview was an attempt to spell out Israel's ultimate red lines for Iran. When a significant amount of enriched uranium reaches the fortified facility at Qom, Israel will lose any possible first strike capability and may have to take the military option off the table altogether.
Since it has more sophisticated military wherewithal, the window of opportunity for an American strike against Iran would last a few months beyond this "red line" point for Israel.
In other words, Barak has been hinting that the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, has chosen the wrong focus by directing attention to the question of when exactly Iran might move from the development of nuclear capability to a specific campaign to attain nuclear weaponization (particularly by arming missiles with nuclear warheads ). Once enough materials have reached heavily fortified underground sites, Iran's nuclear program might be shielded in a way that allows it to choose whatever time it wants to accelerate a nuclear weapons effort.
Israeli intelligence officials believe that Iran has yet to reach a final decision regarding an attempt to assemble a nuclear bomb. The Americans concur with this analysis. Moving ahead with an effort to make a bomb entails a cost - by demonstratively blocking any IAEA monitoring efforts, Iran would have to endure yet stiffer sanctions.
Mixed on sanctions
The issue of sanctions seems vital. Iran is indicating that the sanctions cause vast economic damage, since the country's currency has devalued by 60 percent against the dollar in recent months. The European Union is prepared to engage in a full embargo on oil imports from Iran, starting this July. Russia claims that such international actions will mainly harm Iran's citizenry, and that their main intention is to topple the regime in Tehran, rather than to forestall its nuclear program.
Israel has been sending mixed signals regarding the efficacy of sanctions. In an interview with an Australian newspaper last week, Netanyahu praised the sanctions; yet on Monday, he cast doubt about their utility during a briefing given to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and on his trip to Holland on Wednesday he called for tougher sanctions.
Barak told Army Radio that "there's no doubt that we're seeing effects from the sanctions," but he doubted that these effects would be powerful enough to persuade Iran's leaders to forgo the nuclear weapon option.
The sanctions will influence developments Iran's parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March. International pressure is expected to strengthen the regime's opponents.
Will the sequence of events lead to an attempt to manipulate the election's results, as many claim the regime did after balloting in the 2009 presidential race?
The "Green Revolution" in Iran that summer foreshadowed the coming of the Arab Spring last year. A sequel involving accusations of election fraud could ignite fires of domestic unrest, and the dissent this time could be reinforced by residents of neighboring states.
Faced with such domestic turmoil as well as with the international sanctions, Iran's leadership is signaling willingness to undertake a review about the aims of its nuclear effort. Such signals about a reassessment are surely a mere stalling tactic; but they nevertheless reflect anxieties in Tehran.
While eyes around the world are watching out for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, another possible theater of conflict is the Strait of Hormuz, where the Iranians are renewing threats that they might disrupt the supply of oil from the Gulf states, in response to the sanctions. July 2012 is the date scheduled for the opening of a new pipeline that would bypass the strait and supply 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.
Until this pipeline comes online, Iran has the power to hold hostage about 20 percent of the world's oil supply. Britain and the U.S. are currently deploying unusually large naval presences around the Gulf. A third U.S. aircraft carrier is scheduled to reach the Persian Gulf area in another two weeks.
This has yet to reach a level of tension on a par with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, yet temperatures are definitely rising. A miscalculation, particularly by Iran, could cause an eruption of violence, even one that seems to be against Tehran's objective interests.
This could be the background to the Americans' somewhat surprising disavowal regarding the killing of the nuclear scientist last week, and also to the decision to defer a joint drill involving missile defense systems, from April to the end of the year. The real game is now being played in the sanctions arena, and it would be wrong to downplay the damage sanctions cause to the Iranian regime's stability.
Active efforts to derail the nuclear project, such as the liquidation of scientists, are likely to be held in abeyance. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, should violence erupt in the near future, it should come as the result of coordinated international action, and not as a result of what Iran might be able to portray as acts of military aggression against it. This being Washington's agenda, it is asking Israel's boat not to enter the path charted by its aircraft carrier.
World powers signal openness to Iran nuclear talks
By REUTERS
01/20/2012 20:13
EU's Ashton states diplomatic path remains open to Iran despite tougher sanctions; diplomats say major powers divided over what incentives to offer Tehran if talks resume.
WASHINGTON - Major powers seeking to negotiate an end to Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons on Friday signaled their openness to renewed talks with Tehran but diplomats said the powers remain divided on their approach.
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the group, issued a statement making clear that a diplomatic path remains open to Iran despite tougher sanctions and fresh speculation of a military strike on its nuclear facilities.
RELATED:
Iran calls for Israel to be 'punished' for scientist
UAE cautions against escalating Iran tension
'Iran's economy in shambles from sanctions'
Sarkozy: Time running out for Iran diplomacy
The group, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, includes Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
"The EU3+3 has always been clear about the validity of the dual track approach," Ashton's spokesperson said in a statement that included her Oct. 21 letter. "We are waiting for the Iranian reaction."
The release of the statement and the letter itself appeared be an effort to demonstrate that the major powers are willing to talk to Iran, while reiterating their demands that Tehran must return to the table willing to talk about its nuclear program.
It also appeared to reflect frustration at recent Iranian statements hinting at a willingness to return to the table but Tehran's failure to formally respond to the letter and commit to discussing the nuclear program in earnest.
http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/Sh...ashx?ID=154623
One diplomat said Iran had been sending mixed signals on whether it might be willing to return to talks in the face of tighter US sanctions focused on its crude oil exports and the possibility of a European Union petroleum embargo.
"This is a way to ensure that our offer is absolutely clear," said the diplomat, adding that the central point was to make clear that "we are prepared to sit down with you if you are prepared to demonstrate serious intent."
There have been signals in recent weeks that Iran might be willing to hold a new round of talks about its nuclear program.
Major powers differ on negotiation strategy
Diplomats said that major powers are divided over what incentives to offer Iran if talks resume and whether to allow it to keep enriching uranium at lower levels.
If the Iranians were willing to sit down, the question would then become how the major powers, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, might approach Iran during any such negotiations, notably on any "confidence-building measures."
"There is no agreement inside the P5+1 on how such confidence-building measures should or should not be presented to the Iranians," said one diplomat.
A central issue is whether the group might ask Iran to cease enriching uranium to the higher level of 20 percent but allow it, at least for a time, to continue enriching at lower levels - a stance partly at odds with the group's past positions.
Uranium enrichment is a process that at low levels can yield fuel for nuclear power plants or, if carried out to much higher levels of purity, can generate fissile material for bombs.
Multiple UN Security Council resolutions have called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities and the P5+1 has taken the view that it must suspend such activities during any serious negotiation.
To permit Iran, even for a period, to enrich at lower levels would be something of a concession by the P5+1, although it has previously offered a temporary "freeze-for-freeze" in which Iran would halt expansion of its nuclear program and the major powers would not pursue additional sanctions.
Asked why some members of the group might be willing to let Iran continue to enrich at lower levels, at least for a period, one diplomat said it reflected a desire to give diplomacy every possible chance to succeed.
"That really is the crux of it. You want to be able to say that you pursued every option diplomatically to try to get Iran to halt its program," he said.
A senior Obama administration official told Reuters that if talks were to resume, the group would have a common stance.
"If the Iranians accept the offer of the P5+1 to have talks on the basis of High Representative Ashton's October letter, we fully expect a unified P5+1 approach to the talks," the official said.
Russia warns that Iran strike could trigger 'chain reaction'
Moscow
Thursday 19 January 2012
http://www.independent.co.uk/incomin...ia-reuters.jpg
The Russian Finance Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said he would veto any UN-led action against Iran
Russia strongly criticised Western belligerence towards Syria and Iran yesterday, saying that a military assault on the Iranian regime could cause a "chain reaction" that would destabilise the entire world.
The country's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, also said during his annual televised press conference that Russia would use its veto at the UN Security Council to block any resolution calling for military force to be used against Syria.
Mr Lavrov said that Russia is "seriously worried" that military action against Iran may be under consideration, and vowed that Moscow would do all it could to prevent it. "The consequences will be extremely grave," he said. "It's not going to be an easy walk. It will trigger a chain reaction and I don't know where it will stop."
Last week, a Russian newspaper revealed that the annual training exercises undertaken in southern Russia by the country's army will focus this year on scenarios related to the regional fallout of a possible military conflict in Iran.
Russia has supported some sanctions against Iran, but has rejected any talk of new sanctions. The US has already applied new economic sanctions and the EU is considering whether to follow suit as concerns mount over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but Mr Lavrov said that such moves were disingenuous and had "nothing to do with a desire to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation". Instead, Mr Lavrov added, the new sanctions were aimed at "stifling the Iranian economy and the population in an apparent hope to provoke discontent".
On Syria, where the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime is in its 10th month, the Russian Foreign Minister was equally forthright, ruling out any support from Moscow at the UN for military intervention.
Russia abstained from a Security Council vote on military intervention in Libya and was subsequently furious at what it felt was a bombing campaign that went far beyond the remit to "protect civilians" authorised by the UN.
Moscow has since made it clear on several occasions that it will not tolerate a repeat in Syria, a message that Mr Lavrov reiterated yesterday. "If some intend to use force at all cost we can hardly prevent that from happening," he said.
"But let them do it at their own initiative, on their own conscience; they won't get any authorisation from the UN Security Council."
He was also unapologetic over claims that Russia has been delivering arms to the Syrian regime despite an EU arms embargo on the country. A ship believed to be carrying weapons from Russia was briefly detained in Cyprus earlier this month, before continuing to its final destination in Syria.
Russia has not confirmed that it has been delivering arms to the country, but Mr Lavrov effectively told the West to mind its own business yesterday. "We haven't violated any international agreements or the UN Security Council resolutions," he said.
He also accused Western countries of supplying munitions to the Syrian opposition, which he labelled as "unacceptable and absolutely counterproductive".
EU has formally adopted the Iran Oil Embargo....
Quote:
EU formally adopts Iran oil embargo
Published January 23, 2012
| Associated Press
- http://a57.foxnews.com/static/manage...1euleaders.jpg
AP
October 27, 2011: European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, right, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso participate in a media conference after an EU summit in Brussels.
BRUSSELS – The European Union formally adopted an oil embargo against Iran on Monday and froze the assets of Iran's central bank, part of sanctions to pressure Tehran into resuming talks on its controversial nuclear program.
Diplomats said the measures, approved in Brussels by the EU's 27 foreign ministers, include an immediate embargo on new contracts for crude oil and petroleum products. Existing contracts with Iran will be allowed to run until July.
Some 80 percent of Iran's oil revenue comes from exports and any measures or sanctions taken that affect its ability to export oil could hit hard at its economy. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations suspect it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran is now under several rounds of U.N. sanctions for not being more forthcoming about its nuclear program.
Two Iranian lawmakers, meanwhile, stepped up threats that their country would shutter the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude flows, in retaliation for the EU oil sanctions on Tehran.
Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran's influential committee on national security, said Monday the strait "would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way."
Tensions over the strait and the potential impact its closure would have on global oil supplies and the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. Both the U.S. and Britain have warned Iran not to disrupt the world's oil supply.
Many analysts doubt that Iran could set up a blockade for long, but any supply shortages would cause world oil supplies to tighten temporarily.
For its part, the United States has enacted, but not yet put into force, sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, the country's ability to be paid for its oil.
After news of the EU move, benchmark crude for March delivery rose 90 cents higher on the day at $99.23 a barrel in early morning European time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Brent crude was down 35 cents at $109.51 a barrel on the ICE futures exchange in London.
EU diplomats are calling the measure part of a twin track approach toward Iran: increase sanctions to discourage what they suspect is Iran pursuit of nuclear weapons but to emphasize at the same time the international community's willingness to talk.
Iran says its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, but EU foreign ministers are not convinced.
"The recent start of operations of enrichment of uranium to a level of up to 20 percent in the deeply buried underground facility in Fordow near Qom further aggravates concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," they said in a statement.
That accelerated enrichment is in violation of six U.N. Security Council resolutions and 11 resolutions by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "and contributes to rising tensions in the region," the statement said.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the embargo part of "an unprecedented set of sanctions."
"I think this shows the resolve of the European Union on this issue," Hague said.
The EU also agreed to freeze the assets of the Iranian central bank. Together, the two measures are intended not only to pressure Iran to agree to talks but also to choke of funding for its nuclear activities.
In October, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton sent a letter to Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, saying her goal was a negotiated solution that "restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
She says she has not yet received a reply.
Ahead of Monday's decision, negotiators worked hard to try to ensure that the embargo would punish only Iran -- and not EU member Greece, which is in dire financial trouble and relies heavily on low-priced Iranian oil.
The foreign ministers agreed to a review of the effects of the sanctions, to be completed by May 1. And they agreed in principle to make up the costs that Greece incurs as a result of the embargo.
"It is important to know what will happen to individual countries as a consequence of the sanctions," Ashton said before the meeting.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exile group opposed to Iran's clerical regime, welcomed the new sanctions and called for their implementation without delay.
"For over two decades, the Iranian Resistance has called for comprehensive oil and financial sanctions against the religious and terrorist dictatorship ruling Iran," Maryam Rajavi, the organization's president-elect said in a statement.
He said "the five-month delay in putting these sanctions in full force provides a significant amount of time for this regime to implement its ominous plots."
The council, founded in 1981, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, but not by the European Union.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said it was critical that action be taken.
"This is not a question of security in the region," he said. "It is a question of security in the world."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01...#ixzz1kIHVbG5p
Iran oil sanctioned by Europe
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney January 23, 2012: 10:00 AM ET http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/...ker.gi.top.jpgSanctions ban the import of Iranian crude to Europe and also target Iran's central bank.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The European Union announced tough new sanctions on Iran Monday, banning the import of Iranian crude and other items, in a move designed to increase pressure against Tehran's nuclear program.
The sanctions ban the import of Iranian oil and restrict Iran's trade in gold and precious metals, as well as freeze certain Iranian financial assets, according to a statement from the EU.
Of the 2.2. million barrels of oil Iran exports a day, about 18% is bound for European markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The world consumes about 89 million barrels of oil per day.
The sanctions have a grace period and allow current contracts to be executed until July.
Iran's 'distressed' oil to keep flowing - at deep discount
The grace period will allow European refiners to find new suppliers and Iran to find new buyers.
The move, which was widely expected, follows similar actions by the United States and the United Kingdom. The actions are aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran to give up its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but many suspect is intended to produce a bomb.
The Iranian government gets about half of its revenue from oil exports, according to the EIA.
Analysts have said that while the new sanctions are the toughest ever imposed, they still contain many loopholes.
Iran is expected to still be able to sell its oil to places such as China, India and other Asian countries, but possibly at a discount of 10% to 15%. About 35% of Iran's oil exports currently go to China and India.
Western leaders have been walking a fine line with Iran, working to come up with a plan that squeezes the country's finances yet doesn't result in a loss of Iranian oil exports, which could send crude and gasoline prices skyrocketing. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif
Envoy Stresses Failure of Oil Embargos against Iran
TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian diplomat said oil embargos against Iran are ineffective and Tehran will certainly keep its traditional customers.
http://media.farsnews.net/Media/8907...1/A0921715.jpg
"We will have our traditional customers for selling oil," Tehran's Ambassador to Moscow Seyed Reza Sajjadi said in news conference held at the Russian Rianovosti news agency.
He added that some countries such as China will not abandon purchasing Iran's oil despite the US pressures.
Meantime, Sajjadi called on the world states to avoid following US policies towards Iran, warning that they will have to pay the price for their obedience since Americans cannot help them.
China made it clear that, whatever the commercial or political calculations driving ups and downs in its crude orders from Iran, it rejects in principle unilateral US sanctions.
"Iran is also an extremely big oil supplier to China, and we hope that China's oil imports won't be affected, because this is needed for our development," Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun told a news conference in answer to a question about whether Beijing could curtail crude from Iran under US pressure.
"We oppose applying pressure and sanctions, because these approaches won't solve the problems. They never have," Zhai told the briefing about Wen's six-day visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
"We hope that these unilateral sanctions will not affect China's interests."
The European Union is to meet next week to discuss new measures against Iran's oil exports and its financial sector.
A December meeting of the EU foreign ministers in Brussels failed to reach an agreement on such oil embargos against Iran.
Despite long hues and cries about new sanctions against Iran, the EU and the US could only enlist some more Iranian officials in their sanctions list last month.
Several members of the European bloc voiced opposition to any sanction on Iranian oil, pushing France, the most hawkish EU member, back.
Crisis-hit Greece has said 'No' to an EU oil ban on Iran, causing relief among other member states. Britain and France, the most hawkish EU countries, failed to convince other member states to impose oil embargos on Iran in the December meeting.
Iran has also warned that if the US-led West sanctions Iran's oil exports, Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz. An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.
Iran, the second-biggest OPEC player after kingpin Saudi Arabia, produces about 2.3 million barrels of oil per day - 450,000 barrels of which is exported to the European Union, according to the US Department of Energy.
Manouchehr Takin, an analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies ( CGES) research group, said a removal of Iranian oil exports would hurt Europe more than Tehran.
"The Europeans are importing nearly half a million barrels per day ... Refineries in Greece, Italy and Spain are the main customers. They would suffer very much immediately financial loss (in event of sanctions) because they cannot easily replace that Iranian crude with other crude," he told AFP in December.
"Financially, I think these refineries in Europe - specially those three countries that are having financial problems - would lose and suffer more than Iran would lose in finding other customers," Takin added.
Commerzbank analyst Eugen Weinberg agreed that sanctions would most affect the three eurozone nations which are in the grip of severe debt problems.
Weinberg wrote in a research note "it remains to be seen whether this step (EU sanctions on Iranian oil supplies) is actually taken" as it would strike a heavy blow to the EU members.
"After all, crisis-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece rely on oil from Iran; an embargo would force them to source their oil requirements elsewhere at considerably higher prices."
The head of OPEC said in December he hoped that the EU would not press for sanctions on Iran's precious oil exports.
"I really hope there will not be an EU embargo on Iranian oil," Secretary General Abdullah El-Badri told the World Petroleum Congress in Doha.
"It will be very, very difficult to replace" the Iranian exports.
Iran steps up threats to shutter Strait of Hormuz
Updated 1h 8m ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Two Iranian lawmakers on Monday stepped up threats their country would shutter the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude flows, in retaliation for oil sanctions on Tehran.
By Eric S. Powell, AP
The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier sailed Sunday through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf without incident to conduct scheduled maritime security operations, the Navy said.
The warnings came as EU nations agreed in Brussels on an oil embargo against Iran as part of sanctions over the country's controversial nuclear program. The measure includes an immediate embargo on new contracts for Iranian crude and petroleum products while existing ones are allowed to run until July.
Iran has repeatedly warned it would choke off the strait if sanctions affect its oil sales, and two lawmakers ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday.
Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran's influential committee on national security, said the strait "would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way."
Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."
Another senior lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, said Iran has the right to shutter Hormuz in retaliation for oil sanctions and that the closure was increasingly probable, according to the semiofficial Mehr news agency.
"In case of threat, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of Iran's rights," Falahatpisheh said. "So far, Iran has not used this privilege."
Monday's EU measure also includes a freeze on the assets of Iran's central bank as part of sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to resume talks on its uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to making nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
For its part, the United States has enacted, but not yet put into force, sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, the country's ability to be paid for its oil.
About 80% of Iran's oil revenue comes from exports and any measures or sanctions taken that affect its ability to export oil could hit hard at its economy. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.
Tensions over the strait and the potential impact on global oil supplies and also the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. Both the U.S. and Britain have warned Iran over any disruption to the world's oil supply through he strait.
Another Iranian lawmaker, Ali Adyani, sought to downplay the latest EU move, describing it as a "mere propaganda gesture," according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Former intelligence minister, Ali Falahaian, suggested Iran should stop all its crude exports "so that oil prices would go up and the Europeans' sanctions would collapse."
Threats to close the strait escalated during Iran's naval exercises in the Persian Gulf in January. Iran plans more naval war games in February.
Russia to Sell 36 Yak-130 Jets to Syria
Topic: Protests in Syria
http://en.rian.ru/images/17090/23/170902310.jpg
Russia and Syria have signed a $550-million contract on the delivery of 36 Yakovlev Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer
© RIA Novosti. Anton Denisov
13:04 23/01/2012
MOSCOW, January 23 (RIA Novosti)
Tags: Yak-130, Rosoboronexport, Ruslan Pukhov, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Russia, Moscow
Related News
- http://en.ria.ru/i/fra/img/bul.gifU.S. Seeks Russia’s Explanation on Syria-Bound Weapons Ship
- http://en.ria.ru/i/fra/img/bul.gifRussia pitches 3rd Resolution Draft on Syria
- http://en.ria.ru/i/fra/img/bul.gifRussian weapons ship arrives in Syria - paper
- http://en.ria.ru/i/fra/img/bul.gifTop UN official says 400 people killed in Syria in two weeks
Multimedia
Russia and Syria have signed a $550-million contract on the delivery of 36 Yakovlev Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer, the Kommersant daily quoted on Monday a source close to Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport as saying.
Under the deal struck in late December, the jets are to be supplied to Syria once Damascus makes a prepayment, the source said.
A source in the aircraft production industry told the newspaper the aircraft construction company Irkut is able to produce the jets for Syria in a relatively short time.
Contacted by RIA Novosti, both Rosoboronexport and Irkut declined to comment.
Analysts say the contract is “risky” given the worsening satiation in Syria and the growing international pressure on President Bashar al-Assad over his crackdown on protesters.
Ruslan Pukhov, who heads the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Stategies and Technologies, said the contract was “certainly a big success of Russia’s leaders and arms traders.” But it’s clear, he said, that “the international community, led by the United States, has made a decision to crush Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and this may lead to the contract being disrupted and Russia suffering image and financial losses.”
The contract was apparently signed when the situation in Syria was “not as dramatic as it is now,” Pukhov said, adding that getting the Russian jets has likely lost its relevance for Damascus.
“The Yak-130 plane is superfluous for attacking insurgents – these goals can be served by cheaper planes,” the analyst said. At the same time, he said, the jet cannot endure air battles with Israeli, Turkish, or Western coalition’s aircraft, should a military conflict erupt in Syria.
Russia has opposed international sanctions, including an arms embargo, against Syria, where the death toll from clashes between protesters and government troops has reached 5,400, according to the United Nations.
Earlier this month, the United States expressed concerns over weapons deliveries to Damascus following media reports about a Russian ship loaded with arms docking in the Syrian port of Tartus.
Without explicitly confirming the report of the arms shipment, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week Russia was not going to justify its actions before the West because it was not violating “any international agreements or any [UN] Security Council resolutions.”
“We are only trading items with Syria that are not banned by international law,” he said.
Russia alarmed by EU ban on Iranian oil, sanctions
MOSCOW | Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:47am EST
(Reuters) - Russia expressed "regret and alarm" on Monday over the European Union's ban on Iranian oil and other economic sanctions, saying Tehran will not make concessions on its nuclear program when faced with increasing Western pressure.
"It is obvious that what is happening here is open pressure and diktat, an attempt to 'punish' Iran for its intractable behavior," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement after EU nations agreed the measures.
"This is a deeply mistaken line, as we have told our European partners more than once. Under such pressure Iran will not agree to any concessions or any changes in its policy," it said.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier on Monday that Russia hopes international talks on Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and European allies fear is aimed at developing atomic weapons, can resume soon despite tension.
(Writing by Steve Gutterman; editing by David Stamp)
WRAPUP 2-EU bans Iranian oil, Tehran responds with threats
Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:31am EST
(Adds rial drop, oil price, Lavrov, Netanyahu)
By Justyna Pawlak and Hossein Jaseb
Jan 23 (Reuters) - The European Union banned imports of oil from Iran on Monday and imposed a number of other economic sanctions, joining the United States in a new round of measures aimed at deflecting Tehran's nuclear development programme.
In Iran, one politician responded by renewing a threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an oil export route vital to the global economy, and another said Tehran should cut off crude shipments to the EU immediately.
That might hurt Greece, Italy and other ailing economies which depend heavily on Iranian oil and, as a result, won as part of the EU agreement a grace period until July 1 before the embargo takes full effect. Angry words on either side helped nudge benchmark Brent oil futures above $110 a barrel on Monday.
A day after a U.S. aircraft carrier, accompanied by a flotilla that included French and British warships, made a symbolically loaded voyage into the Gulf in defiance of Iranian hostility, the widely expected EU sanctions move is likely to set off yet more bellicose rhetoric in an already tense region.
Some analysts say Iran, which denies accusations that it is seeking nuclear weapons, could be in a position to make them next year. So, with Israel warning it could use force to prevent that happening, the row over Tehran's plans is an increasingly pressing challenge for world leaders, not least U.S. President Barack Obama as he campaigns for re-election in November.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has voiced scepticism about the chances of Iran being persuaded by non-military tactics, called the EU sanctions a "step in the right direction" but said Iran was still developing atomic weapons.
Israel, assumed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, views the Iranian nuclear programme as a threat to its survival.
Meeting in Brussels, foreign ministers from the 27-state EU, which as a bloc is Iran's second biggest customer for crude after China, agreed to an immediate ban on all new contracts to import, purchase or transport Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. However, EU countries with existing contracts to buy oil and petroleum products can honour them up to July 1.
EU officials said they also agreed to freeze the assets of Iran's central bank and ban trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and state bodies.
Along with U.S. sanctions imposed by Obama on Dec. 31, the Western powers hope that choking exports and hence revenue can force Iran's leaders to agree to curbs on a nuclear programme the West says is intended to yield weapons.
EU SEEKS TALKS
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed plans for a visit next week by senior inspectors to try and clear up suspicions raised about the purpose of Iran's nuclear activities. Tehran is banned by international treaty from developing nuclear weaponry.
"The Agency team is going to Iran in a constructive spirit, and we trust that Iran will work with us in that same spirit," IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said in a statement announcing the Dec. 29-31 visit. "The overall objective of the IAEA is to resolve all outstanding substantive issues."
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said of the new sanctions: "I want the pressure of these sanctions to result in negotiations ... I want to see Iran come back to the table and either pick up all the ideas that we left on the table ... last year ... or to come forward with its own ideas."
Iran has said lately that it is willing to hold talks with Western powers, though there have been mixed signals on whether conditions imposed by either side make new negotiations likely.
The Islamic Republic insists it is enriching uranium only for electricity and other civilian uses.
It has powerful defenders against the Western action in the form of Russia and China, which argue that the new sanctions are unnecessary, and can also probably count on China and other Asian countries to go on buying much of its oil, despite U.S. and European efforts to dissuade them.
Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, classifying the EU embargo among "aggravating factors", said Moscow believed there was a good chance that talks between the six global powers and Iran could resume soon and that Russia would try to steer both Iran and the West away from further confrontation.
A member of Iran's influential Assembly of Experts, former intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, said Tehran should respond to the delayed-action EU sanctions by stopping sales to the bloc immediately, denying the Europeans time to arrange alternative supplies and damaging their economies with higher oil prices.
"The best way is to stop exporting oil ourselves before the end of this six months and before the implementation of the plan," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted him as saying.
He reiterated that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel between the Gulf and open sea through which a third of all oil tanker traffic passes to importers around the world.
Washington has said it will not tolerate any closure, a position underlined by Sunday's passage through the strait of a U.S. flotilla around the carrier Abraham Lincoln, accompanied by two European frigates, Britain's Argyll and France's La Motte-Picquet.
HORMUZ THREAT
While Iran's Revolutionary Guards, possibly aware of the warships' impending arrival, had backed away on Saturday from a threat made by a vice president last month to prevent "even one drop of oil" passing through the strait if the West embargoed Iran's crude, a senior member of parliament said on Monday that the closure remained an option if exports were disrupted.
"If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed," Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, told Fars.
Going further, he referred to previous U.S. warnings that it would use force to break any Iranian blockade of the channel and threatened wider violence against Washington's global interests.
"If America seeks adventures after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will make the world unsafe for Americans in the shortest possible time," Kossari said.
"It is in America's interests to accept a powerful Iran and not seek military adventures."
While the Western powers were at pains to describe their naval movement through the strait as routine, a view echoed by the Revolutionary Guards, they also stressed its symbolism.
"On this occasion HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a U.S. carrier group transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law," Britain's defence ministry said in a statement.
In Paris, spokesman Thierry Burkhard said: "It's a sign to Iran if they want to consider it like that."
Iran, the world's No. 5 oil exporter and also rich in natural gas, says it is refining uranium and developing other nuclear technologies to meet rising energy needs. But the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported in November that it had evidence suggesting Iran had worked on designing an atomic bomb.
The unprecedented effort to take Iran's 2.6 million barrels of oil per day off international markets has kept global prices high, pushed down Iran's rial currency and caused a surge in the cost of basic goods for Iranians.
(Additional reporting by Robin Pomeroy and Mitra Amiri in Tehran, David Brunnstrom in Brussels, Adrian Croft in London, John Irish in Paris, Alexei Anishchuk in Sochi, Ari Rabinovitch and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem and Fredrik Dahl in Vienna; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
Posted about two minutes ago:
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/ar...#ixzz1kIdq1UlOQuote:
EU raises stakes with Iran oil embargo
DON MELVIN, Associated Press
Updated 08:19 a.m., Monday, January 23, 2012
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union and Iran raised the stakes Monday in their test of wills over the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with the bloc banning the purchase of Iranian oil and Iran threatening to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude is transported.
The escalating confrontation is fraught with risks — of rising energy prices, global financial instability, and potential military activity to keep the strait open.
The EU's 27 foreign ministers, meeting Monday in Brussels, imposed an oil embargo against Iran and froze the assets of its central bank, ramping up sanctions designed to pressure Iranian officials into resuming talks on the country's nuclear program.
EU officials say the tighter sanctions are part of a carrot-and-stick approach, an effort to ratchet up pressure while at the same time emphasizing their willingness to talk.
But the initial response out of Tehran, the Iranian capital, was harsh. Two Iranian lawmakers threatened that their country would close the strait in retaliation.
Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran's influential committee on national security, said Monday the strait "would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way."
The strait — just 34 miles (54 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point — runs alongside Iran and is the only way to get from the Persian Gulf to the open sea. Tensions over the potential impact its closure would have on global oil supplies and the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. The U.S. and Britain both have warned Iran not to disrupt the world's oil supply.
After news of the EU move, benchmark crude for March delivery rose 90 cents on the day to $99.23 a barrel in early morning European time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Brent crude was down 35 cents at $109.51 a barrel on the ICE futures exchange in London.
Many analysts doubt that Iran would maintain a blockade for long, but any supply shortages would cause world oil supplies to tighten temporarily. But Kowsari said that, in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."
An American aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln entered the Gulf on Sunday without incident to conduct scheduled maritime security operations, and U.S. warships frequently operate in the Gulf. But when the carrier USS John Stennis departed the Gulf in late December, Iranian officials warned the U.S. not to return.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said the sanctions are a severe mistake likely to worsen tensions. "It's apparent that in this case there is open pressure and diktat, aimed at 'punishing' Iran for uncooperative behavior. This is a deeply mistaken policy, as we have told our European partners more than once," the ministry said in a statement.
"Under pressure of this sort, Iran will not make any concessions or any corrections to its policies," it said.
The EU sanctions include an include an immediate embargo on new contracts for crude oil and petroleum products. Existing contracts with Iran will be allowed to run until July.
Last month, the U.S. enacted new sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad, but it has delayed implementing the sanctions for at least six months, worried about sending the price of oil higher at a time when the global economy is struggling.
Other countries are steering clear of such measures altogether. China also does not support an embargo, and Japan's finance minister, Jun Azumi, has expressed concern about the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions on Iran — not to mention their potential impact on Japanese banks.
Some 80 percent of Iran's foreign revenue comes from oil exports and any sanctions that affect its ability to export oil would hit its economy hard. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.
"It means that we will paralyze, bit by bit, Iran's economic activity and keep the country from using a major part of its resources," said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe. "You can be skeptical, but it is better than making war."
At the heart of the dispute is international unease about Iran's nuclear program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations suspect it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran is now under several rounds of U.N. sanctions for not being more forthcoming about its nuclear program.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Monday it was critical that action be taken.
"This is not a question of security in the region," he said. "It is a question of security in the world."
Iran's denials of military intent have utterly failed to convince EU officials.
"The recent start of operations of enrichment of uranium to a level of up to 20 percent in the deeply buried underground facility in Fordo near Qom further aggravates concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the foreign ministers said in a statement Monday.
That accelerated enrichment is in violation of six U.N. Security Council resolutions and 11 resolutions by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "and contributes to rising tensions in the region," the statement said.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the embargo part of "an unprecedented set of sanctions."
"I think this shows the resolve of the European Union on this issue," Hague said.
The EU also decided to freeze the assets of the Iranian central bank. Together, the two measures are intended not only to pressure Iran to agree to talks but also to choke off funding for its nuclear activities.
In October, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton sent a letter to Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, saying her goal was a negotiated solution that "restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
She says she has not yet received a reply.
Before Monday's decision, negotiators worked hard to try to ensure that the embargo would punish only Iran — and not EU member Greece, which is in dire financial trouble and relies heavily on low-priced Iranian oil.
The foreign ministers agreed to a review of the effects of the sanctions, to be completed by May 1. And they agreed in principle to make up the costs Greece incurs as a result of the embargo.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exile group opposed to Iran's clerical regime, welcomed the new sanctions and called for their implementation without delay.
____
Raf Casert contributed to this report
Four minutes ago:
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1kIe4Pi4BQuote:
Russia lashes out at new EU sanctions on Iran
Monday, January 23, 2012
(01-23) 07:57 PST MOSCOW, Russia (AP) --
Russia's Foreign Ministry is criticizing the new European Union sanctions against Iran, saying they are a severe mistake likely to worsen tensions.
In a statement Monday, the ministry questions how the new sanctions could be seen as helping find a resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
The ministry said, "It's apparent that in this case there is open pressure and diktat, aimed at 'punishing' Iran for uncooperative behavior. This is a deeply mistaken policy, as we have told our European partners more than once. Under pressure of this sort, Iran will not make any concessions or any corrections to its policies."
[/quote]
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...getty.file.jpg
January 23rd, 2012
04:12 PM GMT
Saudi prince: Why Iran won’t shut Strait of Hormuz
http://cnnibusiness.files.wordpress....erios.jpg?w=30
Posted by:
CNN Anchor and Correspondent, John Defterios
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – For the past three years I have taken part in what is known within a group of 50 business and policy makers here in Riyadh as the “sand and snow expedition.” It starts from the capital of Saudi Arabia at the Global Competitiveness Forum and finishes at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
From an editorial standpoint you can, in one week, capture the views of the world’s largest oil producer and the latest on the Arab Spring before moving on to an arena with some 2,600 chief executives and political leaders trying to share the stage perched high among the Swiss Alps.
The visit in Riyadh included an exclusive interview with the wealthiest businessman in the Middle East, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (pictured), chairman of Kingdom Holdings. From the 67th floor of the tower that bears the name of his group, Prince Alwaleed delved into some of the most sensitive issues in the region, from the Arab Spring to sanctions on Iran.
In the halls of the GCF, executives expressed deep concerns about potential conflict with Iran and the impact such a move would have. As he does with some of his investments, Prince Alwaleed took a contrarian view.
“I don’t believe war is inevitable,” he said. “I don’t believe the Strait of Hormuz will ever be closed because Iran knows this is suicide.”
A week ago Saudi Arabia, through oil minister Ali Al Naimi, offered to supply 2.5 million barrels per day in the event that Iranian crude was forced off the market. Alwaleed reaffirmed that pronouncement was indeed a correct one.
“It is not only wise, but a very political and strategic phrase from our oil minister who reflects the views of King Abdullah. For Saudi Arabia to go public and say we will flush as much oil as needed to compensate for any loss of Iranian oil, that is a big message to Iran, don’t keep threatening the world economies.”
The interview followed the release of 4th quarter earnings, which dropped 20 percent due to unrest in some of the key markets: Kingdom Holdings has hotels under the Four Seasons, Fairmont, Raffles and Movenpick brands. While not pleased with the latest results, Prince Alwaleed did say 2012 may be a turning point in the Arab Spring: “I can confirm we have seen the bottom in 2011 and we are seeing indications that as 2012 commences we are seeing an improvement in tourism industry in our region.”
He was suggesting that violence – aside from Syria - may have reached its peak, but not so optimistic about how long it will take to reach political stability. “We are getting into unchartered territory. We cannot really judge where they are heading. We are seeing the aftermath of the revolutions.”
And the prince drew historical comparisons to revolutions in France, Russia and Iran: “Really we cannot judge it is too early. Some revolutions take 20-30 years. We hope that is not the case in our region.”
From outside the region looking in, many foreign investors have been alarmed at the rapid inroads made by Islamist parties in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco.
“No doubt that the Islamic path or factor is playing a role right now,” said the prince. “I believe they don’t have any choice but to be business friendly. They would like to continue to rule their countries.”
Record youth unemployment - one of the key drivers of the Arab Spring - needs to be addressed quickly suggested the chairman of Kingdom Holdings and member of the Saudi royal family as a nephew of King Abdullah.
We then addressed the issue on many minds here - the eventual succession of the king and whether reforms he has put in place will far outlive him. “I believe there is no choice for Saudi Arabia and whoever succeeds King Abdullah, God forbid after he lives long, that they have to go down the reform path.”
After Iran threat, U.S. aircraft carrier goes through Strait of Hormuz without incident
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 5:27 AM EST, Mon January 23, 2012
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...-story-top.jpg
The USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS John Stennis are in the Gulf. The Lincoln moved through the Strait of Hormuz Sunday.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- The USS Abraham Lincoln heads into the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Navy says
- British and French ships accompany the U.S. carrier group, Britain's military says
- Iran had threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz
- The U.S. defense secretary says the U.S. will continue to have a presence in the Gulf
(CNN) -- Flanked by British and French ships, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier moved through the Strait of Hormuz without incident Sunday despite recent threats from Iran.
The U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement that the Lincoln "completed a regular and routine transit of the strait ... to conduct maritime security operations." The Lincoln is in the region with the USS Carl Vinson, giving the U.S. Navy its standard two-carrier presence there.
A British defense ministry spokesman, who was not named per policy, said Sunday that the "HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a U.S. carrier group" going through the strait "to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law."
"Britain maintains a constant presence in the region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security," the spokesman said.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpgRamping up pressure on Iran
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpgTensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz
Several weeks ago, as the USS John Stennis left the Persian Gulf and headed back to the western Pacific, Iranian officials warned the United States not to send in another carrier.
"We have always stated that there is no need for the forces belonging to the countries beyond this region to have a presence in the Persian Gulf," Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said in early January, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. "Their presence does nothing but create mayhem, and we never wanted them to be present in the Persian Gulf."
Tehran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the only outlet to and from the Persian Gulf between Iran and the United Arab Emirates as well as Oman, as Iran faces increased scrutiny over its nuclear program and possible sanctions on its oil exports. The critical shipping lane had 17 million barrels of oil per day passing through in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has responded by threatening to "respond" if Iran attempts to shut down traffic. He said that the U.S. naval and military presence in the region will not change and the current level is sufficient to deal with any situation that could arise.
"We have always maintained a very strong presence in that region," Panetta said earlier this month. "We have a Navy fleet located there. We have a military presence in that region. And ... we have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we were going to do everything possible to help secure the peace in that part of the world."
I didn't have to connect it. lol
You did a fine job.
Even without Hormuz blockade, Iran has options
- Tweet
- Share this
Factbox
- Factbox: Strait of HormuzTue, Jan 24 2012
Related News
- Iran says sanctions to fail, repeats Hormuz threatTue, Jan 24 2012
- Iran slams EU oil embargo, warns could hit U.S.Mon, Jan 23 2012
- U.S. aircraft carrier enters Gulf without incidentMon, Jan 23 2012
- After threats, Iran plays down U.S. naval movesSat, Jan 21 2012
Analysis & Opinion
Related Topics
Related Video
http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources...26906-31_1&t=2http://www.reuters.com/resources_v2/...verlay_140.gif
Iran and the Strait of Hormuz – next steps
Mon, Jan 23 2012
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources...=BTRE80O11AJ00
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
LONDON | Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:25am EST
(Reuters) - Under pressure over its nuclear ambitions, Iran might never act on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz but could retain enough tricks in its playbook to keep its enemies, shippers and global markets on edge.
As Western states tighten sanctions and its enemies wage an apparent covert war against its uranium enrichment program, Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the waterway, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas.
Few intelligence, military and security experts contacted by Reuters either in or outside government, however, believe that is genuinely likely. Instead, they say, Iran's leaders will be looking for ways to harass enemies and cause disruption while falling short of triggering a massive U.S.-led retaliation.
Possible Iranian gambits could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states, grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi'ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant "proxies" such as Hezbollah.
The risk inherent in all this, however, is that someone on either side miscalculates and triggers a full-blown conflict.
"These scenarios make sense as likely actions falling short of actively blocking the Strait -- but they will certainly raise tensions," says Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island.
"Iran's goal in raising tensions in the Gulf may be to get other countries to put pressure on the United States to show restraint (and) as a way to create some breathing room for Tehran to maneuver."
Iran's Revolutionary Guard plans more military exercises for February, sending more swarms of gunboats into international waters and showing off its anti-ship missile arsenal.
That in itself could close some areas of the Gulf to shipping, as well is rattling neighbors and shipping firms.
Iran's 2007 capture of 15 British naval personnel proved hugely embarrassing for London. Tehran may be looking for similar ways success in humbling Western powers without inflicting physical harm.
Already, U.S. and allied naval officers say their vessels are often shadowed by Iranian gunboats, and some worry that if matters escalate further those confrontations could intensify.
"They could easily keep it coming and make it more harassing," said one Western naval officer with considerable experience in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
"But short of an Iranian small boat actually attacking one of our ships, our responses will be within the letter of the law and non-lethal in nature."
HEAVY POSTURING
Beyond the waters of the Gulf, many analysts expect Iran to further raise its support for regional proxies, from militants attacking U.S. forces in Afghanistan to Shi'ite protesters and militants in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
It could add to the growing sense of regional confrontation arising from Iran's defiance of several U.N. resolutions demanding that it suspend its atomic energy program, seen in the West as a camouflaged bid for nuclear weapons capability, and engage in negotiations with world powers on a solution.
Washington seems keen to stress its resolve and showcase its military strength. This week, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through Hormuz flanked by British and French warships - in open defiance of Tehran's warning earlier this month that Washington should keep its carriers out of the Gulf.
In reality, naval sources say the move was likely planned months or longer in advance - every time a giant U.S. carrier docks anywhere, dozens of contracts need to be in place for it to be serviced and supplied.
But this time, given the Iranian threat and the heightened tension, the warships' entry would have been approved at the highest level and deliberately publicized to an unusual degree.
"Both sides are engaged in heavy posturing right now," said Reva Bhalla, director of strategic intelligence for U.S.-based consultancy Stratfor. "Iran is focused right now on highlighting its deterrence tools in the Persian Gulf ... This, of course, increases the risk of miscalculation."
Whilst some analysts believe the Islamic Republic may already worry it has overreached itself, others worry that pulling back may become increasingly difficult politically.
The conventional military mismatch between Iran and its enemies remains colossal.
As well as the Abraham Lincoln, the United States routinely retains a second carrier in the Indian Ocean - currently the USS Carl Vinson - within easy striking distance.
Between them, the two battle groups have the capacity to carry well over 120 aircraft, while escort ships will be carrying dozens if not hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Then there are U.S. combat aircraft based in the Gulf and Afghanistan, together with other well-equipped local air forces, particularly that of Saudi Arabia, not to mention Israel.
Long-range stealth and other bombers based either in the continental United States or the British Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia could also hit Iranian targets with virtual impunity.
"Closing Hormuz is a myth. Iran tried to do that for eight years during the (1980s) Iran-Iraq war, and it wasn't successful even for one hour," said Mustafa Alani, head of Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center.
"They put mines, hit ships, but traffic through the strait continued. They were hit very hard and learned their lesson when they hit an American ship. The U.S. president ordered the U.S. navy to attack, and two-thirds of the Iranian navy was destroyed in one day. We saw that and we know their limitations," he said.
"This is why there are clear statements coming from Saudi Arabia and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) saying, indirectly, that they will replace Iran's oil."
"ASYMMETRIC WARFARE" THREAT
Iran's functional air force is limited to perhaps as few as a few dozen strike aircraft, either Russian or aging U.S. models acquired before the 1979 Iranian revolution and for which Tehran has long struggled to find spare parts.
The conventional Iranian Navy (IRIN) is also weak by modern standards. In any war, its corvettes and relatively advanced three Russian-built Kilo diesel electric submarines -- the pride of its navy -- would almost certainly be destroyed.
Its missile, torpedo and sea mine-equipped mini submarines are also seen as likely to be sunk within days.
More of a worry to Western strategists and shippers are the hardline Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Naval Forces (IRGCNF) with their focus on "asymmetric warfare" designed to work around Tehran's conventional military inferiority.
Firing their truck-mounted missiles directly at a warship or commercial vessel would be swiftly judged an act of war and prompt the immediate U.S. destruction of coastal batteries. But hundreds of Iranian small boats - believed to include suicide craft modeled on those once used by Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers -would offer more options.
Operating in international waters, they can perform threatening passes of both commercial and military shipping, perhaps even firing warning shots and essentially daring international forces to respond. Individual craft could even conduct damaging and perhaps deniable attacks.
For many -- including the insurance companies nervously watching Gulf waters as they determine premiums -- the key question is whether such forces are under responsible control.
"Whereas the IRIN (Iran's mainstream navy) is a conventional military force and likely to be under tight control, the same is not true of the IRGCN," said John Cochrane, senior global risk forecaster at Exclusive Analysis, a London-based consultancy advising foreign firms in the region, including insurers.
"We assess there is a higher risk of a low-level IRGC small boat commander taking unsanctioned action - or just making a mistake - that would result in an incident in which lethal force was used by one side or the other."
Many of the commercial ships passing through Hormuz now carry their own often heavily armed private security details to protect against Somali pirates in the wider Indian Ocean.
Already accused of sometimes shooting unnecessarily at fishing boats, some worry that private security units could spark wider confrontation by inadvertently firing the first shots against Iranian forces.
But ultimately, many believe, wiser heads would probably prevail before matters spiraled out of control.
Such action would not be without precedent.
After frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was heavily damaged by an Iranian mine during the so-called "tanker war" in 1988, the U.S. military launched a limited retaliatory strike that wiped out much of Iran's navy.
But outright war was avoided, as it was again a month later after the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 in what Washington said was a tragic accident.
"I think it's unlikely to escalate -- Iran has too much to lose... and our forces are too professional to let any kind of a localized event blow up into a larger conflict," said the senior Western naval officer.
"If there is an incident, we will quickly get our forces into our respective corner, establish a defensive posture - albeit ready to go on the offensive if directed... - and wait to see what Iran's next move on the chessboard will be."
(Additional reporting by William Maclean in London and Joseph Logan in Dubai; Editing by Mark Heinrich)