 | John Robb: Power to the People? | The Oil Drum | More Sustainlane: U.S. Cities' Preparedness for an Oil Crisis |  |
Iran again
Posted by Stuart Staniford on April 3, 2006 - 6:53pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: iran, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.I recommend reading the whole thing.A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.
Iran successfully tested its second new torpedo in as many days Monday, the latest weapon to be unveiled during war games in the Gulf that the military said are aimed at preparing the country's defenses against the United States.andA spokesman for the elite Revolutionary Guards suggested the new, Iranian-made torpedo was more powerful and capable of going deeper than others in its arsenal.
Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani told state television the ship-launched weapon can target submarines at any depth and is powerful enough to "break a heavy warship" in two. He did not give the name of the new torpedo or any details of its speed or range.
The torpedo was tested in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow entrance of the Gulf and a vital corridor for oil supplies.
A day earlier, Iran announced it had tested a different new torpedo - the high-speed "Hoot," which means "whale." Iran said the Hoot, moving at up to 223 mph, was too fast for any enemy ship to elude. On Friday, it tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radars and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads.Israeli and US authorities expressed some scepticism, but oil prices jumped another $2 just in case.
Great, is there a better way to F-up our future than a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Venezuela_Oil_Total.html
"Last week, Venezuela's oil minister, Rafael Ramirez, said of Exxon Mobil Corp. "we don't want them to be here" because the Irving, Texas-based company has resisted tax increases and contract changes that are part of a policy by President Hugo Chavez's government to re-nationalize the oil industry."
What other country in it's right mind would sign onto this stupidity.
Yes, an attack on Tel Aviv. That would be far worse.
It's not just the PLO that has 'Never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity' The mutual paranoia in the region has done well for the arms dealers, and practically noone else.
The 'wacko' label is based on what dataset?
Actually I think this is bluff and bluster time.
If I understand correctly, any torpedo that can travel that fast is very likely a 'super-cavitating torpedo' (sometimes just called a 'cavitating torpedo'). Essentially, the principle is to rocket-propel the torpedo up to some critical speed at which point the unique frontal shape of the torpedo causes cavitation, or the formation of tiny bubbles of water vapor as the result of localized pressure drop. Once that point is reached, the torpedo finds itself surrounded by a blanket of micro bubbles that offers far less drag resistance than totally liquid water. Because of that, the torpedo, using the same amount of power, can travel at speeds several times faster than a conventional torpedo.
However, the development of such a torpedo has been fraught with a number of daunting problems, namely having to do aimability, control, and range. The US Navy has done extensive work on super-cavitating torpedos, as have the Russians. The first version of a largely experimental Russian super-cavitating torpedo is named the Skvall (Squall). It is believed that the ill-fated Kursk may have been testing such a torpedo when it sank.
The main point here is that if indeed the Iranian claim is true, then that would almost assuredly mean that either the torpedo is a Russian Squall or its successor, or an Iranian-built torpedo based on technology supplied by the Russians. I very seriously doubt that the Iranians would have the hydrodynamic R &D capability to develop something of this level of sophistication all on their own.
So, if this is not just fanciful propaganda on the part of the Iranians, then it appears we might have a very disturbing situation in which the Russians have already supplied the Iranians with some of their top-of-the-line weaponry capable of doing serious damage to our naval presence in the Gulf, not to mention a much more serious threat to tanker traffic than already exists. Of course the trick is to launch the thing before you are detected and destroyed.
I don't claim to be an expert on modern naval weaponry, so I would be very interested to hear further comments by anyone out there who might be.
Anyway, the goal of Russian policy is downright: to arm the weakest so as the sides could shipwreck each other.
Also, what they fired and showed film of left an obvious wake which would be a drawback. But like any new weapon, if you have it in penny-packets it does not help much. You need lots of them.
The BIG point here is: What would the American reaction be to the hit, let alone sinking, of the CVN Ronald Reagan (currently deployed out there) have on the psyche of America (especially red state America)?
For starts, invest in naval construction firms.
No, you (if you're Iran) don't get more than 3 shots, unless they're all going out in the same attack. It's a good war-starter, but there's the bottleneck of defending the delivery vehicles, as well as your entire military/naval structure. If we 'had to' take on Iran, tying them up would hang on air power.
Washington would LOVE to see them use one of those, on ANYBODY. As soon as they throw a punch, GWB has his war. Til then, Rice and Straw can taunt and tease, and maybe find new ways to trick out an attack..
"As darkness settled over Europe on the evening of August 31, 1939, and a million and a half German troops began moving forward toward their final positions on the Polish border for the jump-off at dawn, all that remained for Hitler to do was to perpretrate some propaganda trickery to prepare the German people for the shock of aggressive war.
"The people were in need of the treatment which Hitler, abetted by Goebbels and Himmler, had become so expert in applying. I had been about in the streets of Berlin, talking with the ordinary people, and that morning noted in my diary: "Everybody against the war. People talking openly. How can a country go into a major war with a population so dead against it?" Despite all my experience in the Third Reich I asked such a naive question! Hitler knew the answer very well. Had he not the week before on his Bavarian mountaintop promised the generals that he would "give a propagandist reason for starting the war" and admonished them not to "mind whether it was plausible or not"? "The victor," he had told them, "will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting a waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory.
-W'm Shirer, Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich (p593)
..and on 9/1/39, with German SS dressed up as Polish Soldiers, and concentration camp prisoners as the 'Casualties', Hitler feigned the "Attack on a German Radio Station at Gleiwitz", amongst others, which precipitated the action he had 'Taken every diplomatic tack to avoid'.. (Operation 'Canned Goods')
This is a Chinese variant on the Exocet. It is believed that this missile is in Iran's inventory. If true then the Arabian Gulf is an Iranian lake.
The "SQUALL" mentioned by Stuart has a range of 7.5 miles. The Straits of Hormuz are 21 miles wide at the narrowest point.
Both the Exocet and the C-801 are sea skimming missiles and are deadly. The Exocet is relatively slow. It can be defeated by shipboard computer controlled guns which fire depleted uranium slugs to bring down the missile. These guns require about 120 seconds to acquire the target and set up for a firing solution. The Exocet is slow enough that it can be defeated by such gunfire.
The C-801 has a range of 75 to 150 miles (the greater distance has not been confirmed). The claimed speeds are in the order of 28 miles a minute. The missile skims just above the sea surface and its radar signature is lost in the surface clutter. The defensive systems do not have any time to react before the missile makes impact.
During the first Gulf war the coalition air force never once was able to locate and destroy an Iraqi SCUD on the ground. The SCUD and its launch vehicle are the size of a large fire truck. The C-801 is less than a quarter of this size and therefore much more easily hidden. To add to the problem, the west coast of Iran is rocky and cut with inlets and gullys; it is perfect terrain in which to hide this type of missile.
Given the capabilities of this weapon, Iran has the ability to dominate the entire gulf, not just the straits. During the Iran/Iraq war Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged as US vessels to enable USN convoys to be run. Convoy is no longer a viable response.
Given the other weapons Iran has recently demonstrated, I suspect they have been preparing for a confrontation with the US ever since the US supplied WMD precursor chemicals and other assistance to Saddham. My hunch is that George II is full of bluff and bluster. He is not trying to intimidate the Iranians; he seeks to intimidate the US electorate prior to the mid-terms.
I have just seen a report in the UK here on the ongoing military exercises being undertaken by Iran. I was extremely interested in seeing a low flying aircraft that the Iranian's were reporting on which appears to be a 'ground effect' aircraft.
To my knowledge the Russians are the only ones that ever got anywhere serious with developing this technology. Larger test aircraft were flown during the last days of the Soviet Union.
Along with the torpedo I think this is quite significant.
The BBC reported a denial by the MoD of any meeting to take place today. Story
Regardless of whether or not this particular meeting took place I'm in no doubt that British, American and Israeli Officials have been preparing for some time.
Recall that Ariel Sharon had ordered Israeli Defence Forces to be ready by the end of March. Story
So... what's that ticking sound? ...
.
I can not take the possibility seriously. I admit it, Iran is really hostile toward America and Israel as the statements of this deranged man
The President of Iran -- Figure 3
have made clear. But it might be useful to know that he's not in charge in Iran, it is this man, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The Supreme Leader -- Figure 4
Click to Enlarge
It is not in any country's best interests to start World War III. Mutual assured destruction was the deterrent policy of the Cold War and would remain in place even if Iran had the bomb. There is escalating rhetoric or actions (eg. the torpedo) on both sides. This does not bode well since such situations have a tendency to get out of control. Finally, the level of stupidity and arrogance with these Neocons as reflected by the policies of Bush & Co. is almost beyond comprehension. Their announced policy of pre-emptive aggression whenever they conceive a threat alerts all the nations of the world as to who is really out of control here. Iran's president's speech-making about Israel should be taken for what it is--rhetoric--and not at face value. Iran wants a long and prosperous future just like we all do. And it looks like they'll get it if their natural gas reserves and recent deals with China, India and perhaps Russia indicate.
I would like to think you are right. But put yourself in the position of the Jews living in Israel. Can you trust Iran's leadership? Can you take them at their word, as your forebearers did of Hitler?
Your point about the Supreme Leader, this came from your reference:
1) "Ayatollah Khamenei is known for his radical anti-Western policies. He has repeatedly denounced the idea of talks with the United States. During and after the US-led war on Iraq, he was sharply critical of Washington's policies.[17] On the 2000 al-Quds Day Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for the destruction of Israel.[18]"
Two of the last three Presidents of Iran have said 10,000,000 dead Muslims for the destruction of Israel is worth it. If you led Israel, would you accept that knowing Iran will likely have the nuclear bomb in three years time?
I am not high on religious fervor, I suspect you are not, but they are. "Never Again"
I agree that Iran's leader's statements and the building of a nuclear weapon there can't be reconciled if Iran is sincere about eradicating Israel. Again, I have a hard time believing that any responsible person would believe that "10,000,000 dead Muslims for the destruction of Israel is worth it". Maybe I'm naive and looking at a policy toward Iran like that of British PM Neville Chamberlain before World War II, who attempted to appease the Nazis.
But, launching an attack on them at this time would cause much geopolitical chaos on the internation scene. The implications of this are not hard to fathom. First, Iranian exports would probably stop. The Chinese, the EU and others who get or are anticipating those imports would be mighty angry about this. Here's what's at stake from the EIA. "Iran exports around 2.7 million bbl/d, with major customers including Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe".
Prices could spike well over $100/barrel right away. But there's more. Bush said that calling off the Dubai Ports deal would send the wrong message to the Islamic countries. What kind of message have those countries already received from the US having invaded Iraq and how would that message change if the US (or, much worse, Israel) launched a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilties?
Perhaps you're right that Iran's government contains crazy hardliners that can't be appeased in any way. In that case, any alternative we look at now leads to disaster.
Excellent discussion. And yes, a military strike would bring chaos to the world's oil supply. BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS BASED ON ECONOMICS. And that is the key.
I find it interesting that the Kadima Govt. in Israel is talking about a pullback in the West Bank and completing the wall. Hamas is not the best to politic with, but the wall makes things semi-permanent. Hadrian's Wall worked for the best part of 200 years.
For example, the Bush people, wrongly but, most thought liberating Iraq would help build a capitalistic modern state. It so far has faltered in that, but if it had/does work, millions of unemployed 18-30 year olds would have had a job. Remember, if your income is over $3500 a year income you most likely will not go on a Jihad.
Beggar, in another message, noted "Apocalyptic Resource War." The Bush people do not want that. That is why they bought into the India Nuclear deal, for example. They want to keep business flowing, though they may fail at that too!
Striking Iran would keep Turkey, SA, and maybe Egypt from thinking about building nukes.
The wall is a travesty and as doomed to failure as the Berlin Wall was - and there are plenty of Israelis who will tell you this.
As for "Striking Iran would keep Turkey, SA, and maybe Egypt from thinking about building nukes." - SA (Wouth Africa) had nukes and (quietly) got rid of them - or do you mean Saudi Arabia ?
Of course, either way, the Pakistani example would seem to indicate that the rule is "once you've built nukes you get to keep them - just be quick (and quiet) while you are doing it".
The wall is working in that the number of attacks in Israel have dropped significantly in the recent past. The bombing a few days ago was from picking up a hitch-hiker in one of the far-to-the-east illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Also, the number of Palestinians working in Israel has been massively reduced over the past few years. Cheap labor in Israel has been replaced by Eastern Europeans (Rumanians, Bulgarians, etc.). It is by no means a perfect solution, but Hadrian's Wall did work for 200 years.
SA is Saudi Arabia.
If Iran gets the bomb, and has several, yes, there is little we (USA) will be able to do about it except fall back to the second line. By that I mean, like what France has said a few months back, if the USA or Israel gets hit by an atomic bomb, the gloves come off.
I'm not so sure about that. Some of the Palestinian suicide bombers were quite well-off. Many were solidly middle-class. Some were educated professionals, some were parents of young children. People who had something to live for.
I think it's pretty clear that was causes terrorism is occupation. Many Iraqis were very poor and oppressed under Saddam, but they did not start committing terrorist attacks until we invaded.
It is not a perfect gauge, but a study was done a couple of years ago, I want to say by the International Institute of Strategic Studies out of the UK, but I could be wrong, and it had the following results.
It looked at 40 odd conflicts, many civil wars, around the globe and only two, both associated with the former Yugoslavia, where if you made more than $3500 a year your nation was plunged into war or civil war.
It is interesting that the Serbs thought the Muslim Albanians were occupying Kosovo and that is why they wanted to drive them out! Certainly even rich nations will fight if they are occupied, as did many of the French in WWII.
Yes, your point about Jihadists, that many come from the middle class or upper class of their particular nation is correct. But over history, give a person a job and a home and a family and they are less likely to go out and kill people. This is a good rule of thumb.
This was part of Bush's war in Iraq which is really a war to change to entire Middle East with its high unemployment and growing population. As to how successful this will prove in the end, well, it is not going well right now.
Which was entirely predictable. The Israelis has similar ideas about the West Bank. They thought if they built them infrastructure and gave them jobs, all would be well. Many thought they were actually doing the Palestinians a favor by the occupation. We see how that turned out.
Bingo. This is not to say that the US government is "good" in any sense. I don't mean to imply that at all. But what we have here is a serious miscommunication. Iran runs on religious values. The US runs on economic values. They each speak and the other side doesn't really understand what is being said or why.
Yes, the president of Iran really does believe in the 12th iman. Yes, so does the ayatollah. This is neither bad nor good, just what is. However, you cannot go to men with worldviews like that and expect to talk to them about economics. And likewise, as they try to talk to us (and you, as a good example), many of us are flat out not listening or hearing what they are saying because we cannot believe they mean what they say.
Remember, Hussein said clearly what he intended to do and even sought clarification from the US about it. The US didn't believe he meant it and treated it as if it did not matter, which Hussein took to mean that it did not matter to us and thus was ok to invade Kuwait. And Hussein was considered a moderate compared to the extremists within Islamic culture.
From a religious perspective, these people cannot make peace with Israel. All talk from a scientific or economic perspective completely misses the religious perspective that they hold and which is the primary driver in their thinking processes. At only one point in time have Moslems ever sought peace with Israel since Isreal's creation in 1948. And that one time when Sadat sought peace, it cost him his life, to the glee and celebration of the radical Islamic factions in that part of the world. Israel was invaded the first year of its existence as a modern state. It has been subjected to wars, terrorist attacks, and political actions through its entire lifespan by these same people without cessation.
They mean exactly what they say, whether we consider it rational or not. To them, this is the only rational response possible. So here we are, with the irresistable force (Islam) staring at the immovable object (Israel).
You are not naive, Dave. You simply have a completely different set of assumptions underpinning your worldview. This means that you don't think as they do. Neither you nor they are "wrong" but you're not going to communicate until one side or the other recognizes the other side's assumptions, begins to understand them, and takes them seriously.
Very good insight. I always hated the 30 Years War and at least understood the ones that followed that were about power politics.
Iran's quick and absolute refusal to go along with the UN Security Council's stern requests was a clear escalation of the confrontation.
To follow that up with war games in the Gulf and the show firing of all their best weapons is another escalation.
I am surprised that little mention has been made of the reach of Iran's influence. Hamas has just taken power in Palestine. Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon, adjacent to Israel. Close ally Syria is staring over the Golan Heights, ready to recontest that battleground.
In western Pakistan, the province of Baluchistan is in open revolt against the Government, pretty much as they have been since the British pulled out in 1947. They have strong Persian ties and are mostly Shi-ite. This is also the area that Iran wants to pipe its oil and gas across to get it to India and China.
In Afghanistan, well who knows, but Taliban rebels probably flee over the border into eastern Iran at will. If Iran wanted to cause the US trouble, it could lend some heavy firepower to rebels to destabilise that area.
In Turkmenistan, can anybody fill us in there ?
Iran also has friendly relations with the waring tribes of Azerbaijan and Armenia who could easily attack the pipelines that thread their way around the Kurdish areas of SW Turkey on their way to Mediterranean ports.
In Iraq itself, the constitution clearly says that the party with the largest number of seats gets to nominate the Prime Minister. So they nominate current head, Jaafari, who is supported by al-Sadr because, he says, when Jaafari finally has complete, legitimate constitutional power (soon) he will publicly TELL the US to leave.