US-EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN CAUSE PAIN TO THE WHOLE WORLD

US-EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN CAUSE PAIN TO THE WHOLE WORLD
SAID IMF CHIEF CHRISTINE LAGARDE: IT CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK
Published march 21, 2012

INTRODUCTION
By Hugo adan. March 22, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/

It seems to be one more of the usual deterrence game played between a) powerful countries armed with nuclear weapons intimidating a small country full of oil resources, that is, b) Iran. The pretext now is the assumed building of nuclear weapons (not evidence at all) and the claim by the Zionist of Israel to bomb Iran with a pre-emptive war. Is this just a blab from Israel or are there big interest at stake in favor of war?. To the IMF Chief this seems to be a nasty business from the profiteers of soaring oil prices. She didn’t mention who are they but the fact is that Israel continue making threat of war and the profiteers get more money.

The fact is that there is a 3rd player in the field, also armed with nukes, defending Iran against intimidation, then the previous deterrence game becomes either a dangerous game or a type of cold-war-era game with not nuke-confrontation on earth. IT IS DANGEROUS GAME BECAUSE ISRAEL IS ARMED WITH NUKES (it has a history of aggression with WMD to their neighbors in the region) AND THE US REGIMEN DOESN’T HAVE CONTROL ON THEM. So if they (Israel & US)START a WAR, IT HAS TO BE PLAYED UP THE END. Unless this is for the US a consented game of simulation designed to hurt another player (could be the Europe, as it is said by the corporate media here in the US. Europe is accused of being main factor preventing the US to overcome the Economic-crisis). If this is true, the simulacrum is intended to rid of a future competitor of the US, the EU. The objective in both cases, real war or simulation of war, is the control of oil in Iran.

Why this game has to be played up the end if war starts?. Because the intimidation tactic -known as deterrence game- is not working as expected by the US-UK and Israel. They put-on their boots first and then the socks. They used sanctions first n then after diplomacy, as a result of this mistake the western economies have been hurt. Politically, they are losing previous neutral countries like India. The designers of this game tried to correct this mistake by using the puppet Kofi Annan and he got a conditioned UN Sec Council resolution to give humanitarian aid to the civilian victims of the violence inside Syria. So far so good for NATO allies, if their intentions is to use Syria to invade and take control of Iran.

KOFI ANNAN: MISSIONER OF WAR or PEACE?

Of course US-UK-Israel used this legal instrument to open the space for their strategic aim: arm the mercenary-“rebels” and make it worse the violence inside Syria as it happens after the arrival of the fake missioner of peace. If the text of the SC Res gives them leverage to carry out their bad intentions, Syria has the right to reject such mission, or conditioned to due respect of their sovereignty and take control of the humanitarian supplies, or, band the US-UK and other countries who were involved in supported mercenaries’ violence inside Syria, to come to this country. If US-UK and allies get away with their plans, there won’t be peace but war over there. If 3rd countries like Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua from LA, or others non-members of the Arab League, get involved as commissioners for humanitarian aid, war can be avoided.

IS DETERRENCE GAME FROM COLD-WAR-ERA OBSOLETE or IT WORKS?

On the one side we have NATO allies and in the other, Russian allies, both of them armed with nuclear weapons. The aim of NATO is regime change both in Syria and Iran and that is possible only via carpet bombing and invasion of both countries. The aim of Russia is to provide security to their partners and protect their own interest avoiding the bombing and invasion of Syria n Iran. In economic terms, it means to continue controlling the supply of oil to Europe. At the end, oil is in both sides the major objective of peace n war. Deterrence only works if war is avoided at any cost. If the US-UK & NATO allies do not abandon their objective on Iran, war is very likely. That is the premise to look first in the current situation.

Now, let’s check the principles of deterrence. As T.Schelling and Huth P.K put it (they are the holly cows on deterrence in the West) deterrence Is the art of coercion, intimidation and threats to prevent an adversary of doing something (ie Iran should not make nukes. Or Israel should not bomb Iran) otherwise they will pay the big costs n loses of war. This military strategy of domination departs from two bases and follows several principals.

FIRST, IT IS BASED ON DIPLOMACY. Let’s make a difference between Real and war diplomacy. Real diplomacy is a form of bargaining that seeks outcomes for each state that though not ideal for either party, are better for both than any other alternative. War diplomacy is different, it is just the uses of threat via networks and institutions (i.e the Arab League or the UN) to convince the other party to refrain from initiating undesirable course of action. This diplomacy hides the real intention (of military nature) of the threat. That is NATO style of diplomacy, they used because they have control of org like the Arab League n UN institutions. Russian cannot used, though they have veto power, it is a limited power, so they skip diplomacy and make actions (deployment of aircraft-carrier and navy-missile-carrier) that speak louder than words of diplomats.

SECOND, IT IS BASED IN THE POWER TO HURT. If you place a nuclear-head missile pointing to Russia and they do the same to you, you have to be sure that these arms will be used when a war starts. If you have the monopoly of power to hurt, you can submit to your domain everyone else who has not such power, but if your contender has also nuclear weapons you better resolve your differences via real-diplomacy to get peace under the assumption of mutual-assured-destruction, this implies that both contenders will destroy themselves mutually if they go to war. This is maybe that Germany n France want, that Russian and US-UK got destroyed in a nuke-war. BUT if both US-UK and Russian allies postpone this crisis without going to war, is the EU that is destroyed, and the oil lords of US, UK and Russia will continue profiting from this crisis and high prize of oil.

THIRD, REGARDING PRINCIPLES OF DETERRENCE, THE BASIC ONE IS CREDIBILITY. In deterrence theory it is argue that a threat is credible if (a) the one who make the threat has the military capability to inflict substantial cost on an adversary; and (b) if the one with nuke-power is resolve to use its available military force. Because of the presence of Russians defending Iran n Syria, deterrence is condemned to failure in Iran. It should have failed also in the case of Syria if decided not to accept the UN missioner Kofi Annan. Assad made a mistake since the UN puppet make the mercenaries believe that NATO have not been abandon them. When a sniper hit a marine soldier from a building and other marines call helicopters or planes to bomb the building is because they want to deter civilians in the building of helping snipers. The same with Russians in Chechenia and Syrians with Assad. This principle (and the next one) accept the uses of limited force (in time n space), but not full scale of war (like carpet bombing and invasion) with unpredicted collateral damage. If this happens, it means that deterrence failed.

THE PRINCIPLE OF COERCIVE CREDIBILITY means using diplomacy to convince the adversary about the cost and benefit of cooperation and the consequences of non-cooperation. The case of economic sanctions can be seen as building coercive credibility. But it was also condemned to failure because of Russian in the area, besides, this sanctions was wrongly designed.

FOURTH, THE NEXT PRINCIPLE IS PROPORTIONALITY (nothing to do with proportionality in the theory of just war that limits the means used in war to military objectives, not civilian target and prohibit the uses of nukes, biological and chemical weapons) here proportionality refers the uses of threat in the diplomacy of war (if war start means that deterrence fails) and it implies that if a state make higher demands on another state, is higher the cost of compliance (it leads to not compliance, so deterrence fails). This seems to be the case of sanctions of not buying oil from Iran. This typical blockage don’t work with oil and the worse, it penalize not your enemy but your friends.

In July is coming the sanctions on gasoline, and this sanction is too much too soon and it won’t work either. The other one, the freezing of Iranian capital in western banks is illegal, just piracy, so an act of war that violates the principle of deterrence and speak louder on non-peaceful purposes. Proportionality limit the demands to policy changes, it should never goes to regimen change since it violated a main UN principle, that of sovereignty. If regime change is requested, should be taken as act of war since any regime has social basis and it targets them when nukes, mini-nukes (banker-busters)are used. Regime change is an unjust-illegal claim.

FIFTH, THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPECTED RECIPROCITY. If diplomacy of the attacker offers carrots to get concessions from an adversary and the contender do not pay attention to them and the sticks come (sanctions) for non-corresponding, and even though the contender does not concedes it means that the attacker has either to revise their tactic and get a balance between offering too little too late and given too much too soon. In other words, it means that diplomacy is a failure.

SIX, THE PRINCIPLE OF INTEREST AT STAKE. It means that: to greater interest correspond greater chances of military actions against the adversary. This could explain the easy success of NATO allies in Iraq and Libya (huge interests at stake on oil came together) but it also explain the difficulties in the invasion of Syria and the postponed attack on Iran, Russia and China are involved there. So there are greater chances of nuclear war if the powerful countries (Russia & US) do not sit and make real diplomacy, as it happens during the cold war when each side had a red to call in emergency situations.

THE QUESTION IS: can this war (if any) be limited to the Middle East only?. It is unlikely, since the bombing of Iran will be used by the Russian Lavrov to blow out Dimona and several missiles stations pointing to Russia. If the US-UK hit Russia or China they will retaliate immediately. Israel, London and 3-4 big cities in the US will be hit too. It won’t be the end of history, but if this war continue more than 3 days, it could be. Even with 2 days of nuclear ex-change, the world won’t be the same.

=======================

SOURCES:

Now let’s read current articles on this matter.

WAR WITH IRAN TO CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK – IMF
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ Published march 21, 2012

A sudden cut of oil flow from Iran may cause a surge of crude prices of up to 30 per cent, dealing a blow to the world economy, warns IMF chief Christine Lagarde.
¬
The continuing standoff between Iran and the West may result in “serious consequences” for the world Lagarde, executive director of the International Monetary Fund, said Tuesday.

"Clearly it would be a shock to economies if there was a major shortage of exports of oil out of Iran, it would certainly drive up prices for a period of time," she told the media.

The IMF chief estimates that a sudden disruption of oil flow from the world’s second-largest exporter may cause the price to surge by 20 to 30 per cent. Benchmark crude prices have risen 7 per cent this year alone, as traders monitor the mounting pressure on Iran.

The campaign has resulted in surge of domestic prices in Iran and devaluation of its national currency, the rial. It also resulted in the rise of world oil prices, as nations following America’s suit were looking for alternative sources of oil.

----------------------------

US-EU WILL CONTINUE SANCTIONS by PENALIZING 12 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
EUROPE n JAPAN WHO ALSO BUY IRAN OIL ARE EXCLUDED FROM PENALTIES

US CONTEMPLATES PETROLEUM PENALTIES
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ March 21, 2012
¬
The tension was somewhat deflated after the US said it would exempt 10 European nations and Japan from penalties for trading oil with Iran. All of them sided with American sanctions against Tehran’s oil industry and took steps towards reducing import from the Islamic Republic.
“We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as the exemption was announced.

At the same time the US has a list of 12 countries which failed to join the sanctions and thus may be targeted by American penalties for doing so. Among those are the largest buyers of Iranian oil CHINA AND INDIA AS WELL AS US ALLIES SOUTH KOREA AND TURKEY.

President Obama may order to cut off banks operating in these countries and involved in oil trade with Iran from the American financial system. They may still get a waiver if the US national interests require so or if they change their policies by June 28.

The US issued sanctions against Iranian oil trade last year in a bid to stop uranium enrichment by Tehran. The West suspects that Tehran may be secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon, an accusation Iran denies.

----------------------

EVEN EXCLUDING SPAIN, GRECCE n ITALY SANCTIONS WILL STRANGLE THEM


WILL SWIFT BAN ON IRAN STRANGLE SPAIN?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/
Published: 16 March, 2012,

With the upcoming EU electronic banking transactions ban on Iran, the Islamic Republic might face a crude economic pinch. However, in an attempt to pressure Tehran, technocrats in Brussels might actually be leading Spain to the scaffold.

SWIFT, the world's biggest electronic banking system, is preparing to cut off Iranian financial firms, including the country's Central Bank, blacklisted by the EU. The move is part of the European plan to impose an embargo on Iranian oil this summer over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The EU and US are hoping to force Iran to the negotiating table by targeting its oil revenues.But the measure is expected to backfire on average Europeans, particularly in Spain, which imports over 1.5 million barrels of oil from Iran daily.

“EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CASE AGAINST IRAN IS STRONG, THE SANCTIONS RIGHT NOW, EXERCISED BY COUNTRIES LIKE SPAIN, GREECE OR ITALY, WILL DAMAGE THOSE COUNTRIES MORE THAN IT WILL DAMAGE IRAN,” journalist Miguel-Anxo Murado told RT.

While countries like France and Britain can easily ban Iranian oil because they are not dependent on it, the EU’s most economically battered states – Spain, Greece and Italy – will feel the effect of the sanctions most.
“Of course we can’t refuse. The pressure from the US, Britain and France is huge,” Murado acknowledged.

SPAIN IS EUROPE’S SECOND LARGEST IMPORTER OF IRANIAN OIL AFTER ITALY. WHEN THE EU-IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON TEHRAN COME INTO FORCE THIS JULY, a good share of Spaniards may find driving a car an unattainable luxury.

One way or another, Spain has until July to find alternative sources of crude supplies. The country has already promised to switch oil imports as it continues to buy Iranian oil, albeit in lower quantities.

In addition, Spain's biggest refiner Repsol has repeatedly declined to comment on the details of its oil purchases.

---------------------

BECAUSE OF REPSOL US DON’T CARE IF SANCTION AFFECT MOSTLY SPAIN

REPSOL n CUBAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/ March 16

In late January, Repsol also announced it had started the long-awaited exploration of offshore oilfields near Cuba. However, any positive benefits felt from that venture will not materialize for several years.

Petrol prices in Spain used to be among the lowest in Europe. Now prices are rising as the looming oil embargo is expected to push them even higher. In a healthy economic situation, a rise in oil prices might be problematic. But coming at a time when Spain is on the brink of a second recession, it’s proving a nightmare for the population.

One year ago, Spain already had to reduce the speed limit from 120 km/h to 110 km/h in an effort to save up to €2.3 billion a year in oil costs. Today, with unemployment soaring at 22.8 percent, Spain has found itself in really dire straits.

RT’s Sara Firth spoke with people at a gas station in Valencia and most of them, if not all, seem to be petrified by the prospect of further spikes in gas prices.
“It's terrible that we should pay for decisions taken in Brussels, it's not known whom they are taken for but certainly not for ordinary people,” one of them told RT.

Spanish citizens said if the already high prices go even higher, people won’t be able to afford gasoline. Attempts to calm fears about a rise in prices have been made, with Saudi Arabia saying it has enough oil to make up for the loss of Iran’s supplies when the embargo comes into force.

But countries like Spain will still be paying the price of lost trade with Tehran and the cost of replacing oil contracts with the Islamic Republic, which have in fact increased since the EU-backed Libyan war.

Moreover, the prospect of military standoff with Iran is causing huge concern among oil traders and economists.

Energy Expert Adolfo Jumenez Regulio told RT that “while there is no war – price escalations due to sanctions can be corrected. The problems will come if there is a war with Iran – then you could see a real crisis.”

------------------------------

BLACKMAILING INDIA: WITH US or AGAINST But India is not a terrorist country

US COULD PUNISH INDIA FOR BUYING IRANIAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/us-india-oil-iran-635/. Edited: 15 March, 2012

The White House could impose sanctions on India if the country fails to meet the US demand to cut oil imports from Iran. As the US is trying to deprive Tehran of its leading source of revenue, India continues to resist US pressure.

President Obama could be forced to bar access to the US banking system for any Indian bank processing oil payments through the Iranian Central Bank, anonymous US officials told Bloomberg.

INDIA, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT US ALLIES IN ASIA, HAS REBELLED AGAINST AMERICAN PRESSURE to cut oil imports. Washington, followed by the EU, imposed sanctions on Tehran in an attempt to force the Islamic republic to give up its nuclear program.

Earlier, India and China proposed Iran to switch from the dollar to gold in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions.

India imports nearly 80 per cent of its oil needs, and oil accounts for nearly a third of the country's imports. Its demand for oil remains high, making it hard for the country to diversify its suppliers.

It’s not the first time India has experienced pressure from Washington over its economic alliance with Iran. It has been reported the country was forced to quit a joint pipeline project with Iran and Pakistan to transport gas from Iran. In 2010, India withdrew from negotiations, and the deal was signed between Pakistan and Iran only.

PAKISTAN also faces US pressure from the 2700 km long pipeline that will start transferring Iranian gas from 2014: the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned recently the deal could spur US sanctions.

The most peculiar thing is that the new US law targeting Iranian petroleum transactions doesn’t specify by what percentage a nation must reduce its Iranian oil imports to qualify for an exemption from sanctions. But given the level of trade between Iran and India, particularly where oil is concerned, New Delhi is a top priority target for Washington.

----------------------

INDIA, CHINA N TURKEY REFUSING TO JOIN THE SANCTION SPREE
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead.

India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European counterparts.

Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London.

Delhi’s current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree.

----------------------------

IRAN: EU OIL EMBARGO DOOMED TO FAIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-embargo-sanctions-509/
Published: 23 January, 2012

The EU’s embargo on Iranian oil is “doomed to fail,” Tehran said after the crucial decision was taken. Iranian media outlets are sure the Persian country will not run out of customers - and suggest cutting off oil supplies to Europe before July.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, as quoted by Itar-Tass, said that tightening the screws on Iran is an “illogical and useless measure…only understandable in the framework of propaganda and psychological war."

A total boycott of Iranian oil starting in July 2012 would but worsen the continuing economic crisis in Europe: “It seems the American authorities want to disrupt the energy sources of their rivals and weaken their economies under the pretext of piling up political pressure on Iran.”

Earlier in the day, several top Iranian officials threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which Gulf crude exporters use to take almost a third of their oil to the international market, if more sanctions are imposed on Iran.

--------------------------------

IRAN 'DEFINITELY' CLOSING STRAIT OF HORMUZ OVER EU OIL EMBARGO
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-close-strait-hormuz-embargo-455/
Published: 23 January, 2012

Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.

Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in respone to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.

The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is also one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world when it comes to oil transit. With world oil output estimated at some 88 million barrels per day in 2011, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that some 17 million of those barrels passed through the Strait.

If economic sanctions sufficiently pressure Iran to retaliate by closing down the Strait, nearly 20 per cent of worldwide oil trade would be impacted, resulting in a massive spike in global energy costs.

With over half a million regular forces and an additional 120,000 personnel in the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard, analysts believe the consequences of a US-led war against Iran would dwarf recent Western-backed military incursions the Middle East.

Thus far, the US decision to maintain two carrier strike groups in the region has been described as “a routine activity” by Iran.

But the vast US military buildup in the region, which was bolstered when the Pentagon dispatched an additional 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait, was only the latest step in an obvious attempt by Washington to strengthen its military capabilities in the region.

According to Revolutionary Guard commander Brigadier General Jafaari, "The enemy is far more advanced technologically than we are, we have been using what is called asymmetric warfare methods… our forces are now well prepared for it," he said, as cited by Global Bearings.

Ultimately, the latest round of brinkmanship between Iran and the West may force Iran to the negotiating table over its uranium enrichment program.

However, the EU strategy of averting "chaos in the Middle East" by tightening the economic noose around Iran could spark the very conflagration it was ostensibly trying to avert.

------------------------------

US BELIEVE IN MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS
WITH KOFI ANNAN THEY WANT TO OPEN SPACE TO INVADE SYRIA n IRAN
WITH TWO AIRCRAFT-CARRIERS IN THE REGION, TO INTIMIDATE RUSIA n CHINA

US aircraft carriers to deliver 'direct message to Iran'
http://www.rt.com/news/aircraft-carrier-hormuz-iran-391/

In an apparent show of strength, Washington is deploying a second carrier strike group in the Gulf. US officials also confirmed their commitment to maintaining a global fleet of 11 aircraft carriers despite budget pressure to cut the fleet's size.

Pentagon 'prepared': US set for Operation Iranian Freedom?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-conflict-us-ready-179/

Washington is prepared to engage in war over the Strait of Hormuz at any moment, the Pentagon says. Some observers say the dangerous move is being viewed as a far from worst-case scenario in America, especially by its hawks.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday.
"We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now," Panetta explained.

The US says it will attack Iran if it tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for regional oil transit. Tehran has threatened to stop traffic through the Strait in response to mounting pressure, including threats, sanctions and particularly an air strike on its nuclear facilities, which Israel and the US say are on the table.

-----------------------

DANGEORUS GAME

Oil plot': US embargo on Iran targets Europe?

Tehran believes that Washington is trying to deal a blow to debt-ridden Europe by forcing it to join its embargo on Iranian oil imports. Doing so would be “suicidal” for Europe, Iran says.

Iran’s OPEC governor, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, said it would be “economic suicide” for Europe to join the sanctions amid the crisis.

“Regarding the economic crisis in the eurozone, imposing any sanction on Iran's oil will push European countries into a deeper crisis,” Khatibi said as quoted by Mehr news agency. “The European currency is already under pressure because of debt and financing problems facing some of its members.”

Double-edged embargo

Europe is a major importer of Iranian oil, the others being China, Japan, South Korea and India. Southern European countries like Italy, Spain and Greece buy some 13 per cent of all crude they consume from Iran.

-------------------

'Attack on Iran won't be an easy walk' - Lavrov

http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-russia-conference-us-iran-israel-syria-071/
Edited: 19 January, 2012,

During his annual news conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the scenario Russia and the global community could face if things in the Middle East, especially in Iran, get out of hand.

The Russian Foreign Minister did not mince his words when he spoke about the “grave” consequences of a military strike against Iran.

would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said in a comment apparently intended for Israel and the United States. “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.”

-----------------------