<DrumBeat: September 17, 2007The Oil DrumOilwatch Monthly - September 2007>

24 comments on UPDATE: Greenspan Clarifies. Well, kinda.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NASAguy on September 17, 2007 - 2:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

As somebody pointed out on another thread, controlling Iraq will not help much in controlling the Strait of Hormuz - it's a long way away. Control of the Straights of Hormuz is more dependent on another country beginning with "Ira."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on September 17, 2007 - 4:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This sounds a lot like some in the Pentagon and CIA are trying to warn us of what the Neocons are up to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116...
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:29am BST 17/09/2007

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
 
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

Retired three star general Newbold's comments on Iraq, from last year:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ResponsibleAccountable on September 17, 2007 - 10:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You know - sometimes things seem so obvious when others point them out.

Of course - they don't really need to go take all of Iran... just a sort of Guantanamo base on the peninsula overlooking the straights...

Oman is friendly right? Then take a swathe of the curve from around Bandar-e Lengeh to Sirik, and the islands... purely as a defensive measure of course...

Then whether Iraq is a success or not, whether Iran is conquerable or not, the US controls the Straits, and most of the oil supply out of the ME...

Is this the plan B to an Iraqi fuck up?

--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on September 18, 2007 - 1:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Re,

Interesting idea.
re: "Of course - they don't really need to go take all of Iran..."

The next question is: What are the likely responses to this (by whom)? i.e., what could prevent this?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on September 18, 2007 - 10:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think it would be much more easier to go ahead with building those pipelines, bypassing the Straits. Judging from the Iraqi war it would be much cheaper, even if we discount the death toll, as we usually do.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sterling on September 18, 2007 - 1:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

US controls the Straits

I think it would take a lot more than that to actually control the straits and insure the the continued flow of oil. Just the threat of hostilities would send insurance rates through the roof. If they sank one good sized tanker in the channel it would cause chaos.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on September 19, 2007 - 4:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What if Iran decides to make a "pre-emptive strike" to "ensure security of the straits"? In other words, what if their corporatocracy decides that it is "The business of Iran" to stop anyone but Iran from shipping oil?

What if our intelligence finds out about it, and decides on a "pre-pre-emptive strike" to "ensure security of the Straits"?

What if they attack each other at the same time?
Gambling logic says that you end up with 1 chance in 3 that the scenario plays out where the Strait of Hormuz is still passable in the near term (we attack first without them expecting it), probably half that chance that the oil terminals would remain undamaged; whereas a continuous diplomatic dialogue of accusations and eventual diminished macho-ism leading to possible actual verbal intercourse would allow ships to continue to transport oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.