Iran Super Thread- Merged

[couchcommander]

No, but it is still commercial interest.  They are making money supporting Iran's reactors and selling the technology.

Indeed. For those who don't think Russia knows exactly what is going on, lest we forget:

 

[Stirling N6123]

Just searching on Wikidpedia for information on Irans Military. Not a great source of Information, but all the same.....

What gets me is the reference to the peoples militia, or the Baseej......

It also has a people's militia called the Basij, or Baseej paramilitary volunteer forces. There are about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members and up to 300,000 reservists. The Basij can mobilize up to 11 million men and women

11'000'000 million people, that's alot of guns.

 

[a_majoor]

The Basij was actually the source of the children who led human wave attacks against the Iraqi's in the Iran Iraq war during the 1980's. Their primary purpose in today's Iran is to preach the twisted message of martyrdom and influence the upcoming generation of Iranians (which I suspect they can do with great success in rural Iran; in the cities people have access to outside media and influences, hence the recent crack downs on everything from radios to fashion). With such a large and indoctrinated base, the Theocracy has the ability to crack down on internal dissidents and the Basji would also be a source of recruits for any insurgency raised by the theocracy after their overthrow (from any cause).

Google Basji and learn more

 

[a_majoor]

Luckily we have one ally who NEVER rests and always contributes (although sometimes it is difficult to see the direct results, the indirect approach is often favored): Adam Smith!

The mismanagement of the oil industry by the State reduces the overall financial position of Iran, and I would expect there are a lot of knock off and follow through effects throughout the economy which compound the problem. Iran's leadership does not have full access to the economic resources they desire to fulfill their goals (including becoming regional Hegemons and destroying Israel), and the fact it is self inflicted makes it even better. Maybe we don't need to "Light up the sky" if "we" in the West can maintain our patience and resolve for a few more years in Iraq and Afghanistan. A close read of the article indicates several possible pressure points, including petrolium inports to Iran(!), disinvensting in companies which deal with Iran and putting immediate financial pressure on internal spending which is designed to promote loyalty to the regime (or at least keep people quiet).

http://www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/nov2006/gb20061130_396971.htm

Surprise: Oil Woes In Iran
Flagging output from its vast reserves could diminish Tehran's influence
by Stanley Reed

Few countries can match Iran in its ability to generate angst among Westerners. It appears determined to become a nuclear power. Tehran's Islamic leaders aid radical groups across the Middle East. And as the U.S. gets bogged down in Iraq, Iran's influence in the region is on the rise, fueled in large part by its vast energy wealth.

Yet Iran has a surprising weakness: Its oil and gas industry, the lifeblood of its economy, is showing serious signs of distress. As domestic energy consumption skyrockets, Iran is struggling to produce enough oil and gas for export. Unless Tehran overhauls its policies, its primary source of revenue and the basis of its geopolitical muscle could start to wane. Within a decade, says Saad Rahim, an analyst at Washington consultancy PFC Energy, "Iran's net crude exports could fall to zero."

That's not to say Iran doesn't have abundant resources. The country's 137 billion barrels of oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, and its supply of gas trails only Russia's, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Getting it all out of the ground, though, is another matter. Iran has been producing just 3.9 million barrels of oil a day this year, 5% below its OPEC quota, because of delays in new projects and a shortage of technical skills. By contrast, in 1974, five years before the Islamic Revolution, Iran pumped 6.1 million barrels daily.

The situation could get even tougher for the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC), which is responsible for all of Iran's output. Without substantial upgrades in facilities, production at Iran's core fields, several of which date from the 1920s, could go into a precipitous decline. In September, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh suggested that with no new investment, output from Iran's fields would fall by about 13% a year, roughly twice the rate that outside oil experts had expected. "NIOC is likely to find that even maintaining the status quo is a mounting challenge," says PFC Energy's Rahim.

STATE HANDOUTS

Iran's looming crisis is the result of years of neglect and underinvestment. As in other oil-producing countries such as Venezuela and Mexico, the government treats the oil industry as a cash cow, milking its revenues for social programs. It allocates only $3 billion a year for investment, less than a third of what's needed to get production growing again.

Compounding the pressure are policies that encourage profligate energy use. Gasoline prices are set at 35 cents a gallon, which has helped fuel 10%-plus annual growth in consumption, PFC Energy figures. The national thirst for gasoline far outstrips domestic refining capacity, so Iran will import about $5 billion in gasoline this year, or about 40% of its needs. The government is planning a $16 billion refinery building program to boost capacity by 60%. But unless Iran raises fuel prices, the new plants will just mean more consumption.

An oil squeeze could spell trouble for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The populist leader has won backing at home through generous handouts. Ahmadinejad has ratcheted up public spending this year by 21%, to $213 billion, on everything from aid to rural areas to housing loans for newlyweds. He has also promised some $16 billion in outlays from a special $30 billion fund set up to tide Iranians through future hard times. Without a healthy oil sector, Iran's social spending could bust the national budget--and reignite inflation.

Iran badly needs fresh foreign investment to shore up the oil industry. Tehran has attracted some $20 billion in funding for oil and gas projects since 1995 from overseas companies including Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD), France's Total (TOT), and Norway's Statoil. But new investment has largely dried up in recent years because of lingering worries about the risk of war with the U.S. and disenchantment with Iran's tightfisted terms. Outsiders are offered contracts only to drill wells--rather than operate fields--and get just a small share of profits from output. For instance, Italian oil giant ENI (ENI), a fixture in Iran since 1957, produces about 35,000 barrels per day but doesn't expect to get any bigger. "Unless international sanctions are imposed on Iran and the Italian government directs ENI to abide by them, we are committed to staying," says ENI Chief Executive Paolo Scaroni. "However, in order to increase our presence there, contractual terms for oil companies need to change."

Endless haggling and delays have set back some of Iran's biggest oil initiatives. One top priority had been the Azagedan field in southern Iran, which is expected eventually to produce 260,000 barrels a day. But in October, Tehran scrapped a $2 billion contract, agreed to in 2004, with Japan's Inpex to develop the project. And Shell's $800 million Soroush/Nowrooz project in the Persian Gulf has been plagued by cost overruns and technical glitches. In January, meanwhile, Statoil wrote down the entire $329 million book value of its South Pars project because of "productivity and quality problems" with a local contractor.

GLACIAL PACE

It's not just oil that Iran is failing to exploit. The glacial pace of negotiations is also making it fall behind neighboring Qatar in exploiting the huge offshore gas field that the two countries share. While Qatar has signed up the likes of ExxonMobil (XOM) and Shell to develop the site, Iran's talks with Total and Shell have progressed far more slowly. Iran is now a net importer of gas, a situation not expected to reverse before 2010.

Foreign energy companies are lobbying the Iranians to change. Executives say they would like longer contracts, which would give them more control and might boost returns. But progress is slow as many Iranian officials are reluctant to give foreigners terms that might be judged too favorable. "There are indications of movement, but how far and how deep it goes is anyone's guess," an oil executive says.

Can Iran fix its energy conundrum? Some experts are betting Tehran will get its act together sooner rather than later. Iran was able to boost production from 1.2 million barrels a day during the 1980-88 war with Iraq to nearly 4 million barrels with almost no foreign help, notes Bijan Khajepour, chairman of Tehran's Atieh Bahar Consulting, which advises oil companies. He thinks Iran should be able to sustain current production for the next decade. Even so, if Tehran doesn't face up to the woes of its oil industry, Iran may find itself in the unusual position of sharing the West's angst over growing dependence on imported oil.

with Babak Pirouz in Tehran

Reed is London bureau chief for BusinessWeek.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165964526796&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



Israel will be 'wiped out': Ahmadinejad
Dec. 12, 2006. 10:43 PM


TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hardline president said Tuesday that Israel will be one day be "wiped out" just like the Soviet Union was, drawing applause from participants in a world conference casting doubt on the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were likely to further fuel the outcry sparked by his hosting of the two-day gathering, which has gathered some of Europe and the United States' most well-known Holocaust deniers.
Anger over the conference could have political fallout, further isolating Iran and prompting a harder line from the West, which is considering sanctions against Tehran in the standoff of its nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad appeared to revel in his meeting Tuesday with the conference delegates, shaking hands with American delegates and sitting near six anti-Israeli Jewish participants, dressed in black ultra-Orthodox coats and hats.
Ahmadinejad repeated predictions that Israel will be "wiped out," a phrase he first used in a speech in October, raising a firestorm of international criticism.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told the participants during Tuesday's meeting in his offices, according to the official IRNA news agency.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."
"By the grace of God, the arc of the Zionist regime's life has reversed and is heading downward. This is a divine promise and the public demand of all nations of the world," he said, bringing applause from the delegates.
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and comments casting doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a "myth" used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.

Ahmadinejad announced that the conference had decided to set up a ``fact-finding commission" determine whether the Holocaust happened or not. The commission will "help end a 60-year-old dispute," the president said.

He called on Western governments "not to harrass members of this commission and allow them to carry out more research and make all issues transparent."
The Tehran conference was touted by participants and organizers as an exercise in academic free expression, a chance to openly consider whether six million Jews really died in the Holocaust far from laws in several European countries that ban questioning some details of the Nazi genocide during the Second World War.
It gathered 67 writers and researchers from 30 countries, most of whom argue that either the Holocaust did not happen or was vastly exaggerated. Many had been jailed or fined in France, Germany or Austria, which have criminalized Holocaust denial.

Participants milled around a model of the Auschwitz concentration camp brought by one speaker, Australian Frederick Toben, who uses the mock-up in lectures contending that the camp was too small to kill mass numbers of Jews. More than one million people are estimated to have been killed there.
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said American David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Rabbi Moshe David Weiss, one of six members attending from the group Jews United Against Zionism, told delegates in his address, ``We don't want to deny the killing of Jews in Second World War, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed."
"They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression," he said. His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law.

The semi-official news agency ISNA said that the fact-finding commission announced by the conference would be led by an Iranian and include members from France, Bahrain, Austria, Canada, the United States, Syria and Switzerland. It did not name the members but it appeared they would be drawn from the conference participants.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that the conference was "shocking beyond belief" and called the conference ``a symbol of sectarianism and hatred."

He said he saw little hope of engaging Iran in constructive action in the Middle East, saying, "I look around the region at the moment, and everything Iran is doing is negative."
In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called "an affront to the entire civilized world."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined the chorus of world leaders condemning the conference.
"On behalf of the government of Canada, I want to condemn, in the strongest terms, this latest example of anti-Israeli and racist statements from the president of Iran," Harper said in a statement.

Harper added the conference is an offence to all Canadians.

Its almost time for the head shot.

 

[warspite]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/23/un-iran.html

UN imposes sanctions on Iran
Last Updated: Saturday, December 23, 2006 | 4:23 PM ET
CBC News
Following two months of debate, the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program.

The resolution — the latest version drafted on Friday by Britain, France and Germany — aims to stop Iran from enriching uranium, which could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Javad Zarif, Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, said his country's nuclear program is peaceful.
(Frank Franklin II/Associated Press) It orders all countries to ban the sale of technology and materials that could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns the country that the council will adopt further non-military sanctions.

Shortly after the vote was announced, Iran rejected the resolution and said it would continue enriching uranium.

"Bringing Iran's peaceful nuclear program to the council by a few of its permanent members, particularly the United States, is not aimed at, nor will it help, seeking the solution or encouraging negotiations," said Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.

Talks about possible sanctions began after Iran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment.

Continue Article

Support for the resolution from China and Russia, two of the 15 council members, was in question heading into Saturday's vote. The initial draft was watered down during negotiations, mainly to win Russia's vote. Russia is building a reactor for a nuclear power plant in southern Iran.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, outlined his country's position before the crucial vote.

"Activities which are completely legal, valid and have nothing to do with the risk of non-proliferation can be conducted without any hindrance or interference."

Churkin said Moscow agreed to sanctions because it wanted Iran "to lift remaining concerns over its nuclear program."

He stressed that the goal must be to resume talks. If Iran suspends enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution calls for a suspension of sanctions, "which would pave the way for a negotiated solution," Churkin said.

And so the die is cast.... wonder how it will turn out.

 

[FredDaHead]

I guess they prefer being able to say "we told Iran not to do it" rather than know what's going on... Heh, maybe when Tel Aviv sees a second sunrise, followed soon after by Tehran, they'll realize just pointing an accusatory finger at Iran wasn't such a good idea.

 

[daftandbarmy]

EYEING IRAN
By RALPH PETERS

January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region, baffled the media.

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations? - There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.  While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world. In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.) Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand. STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numerous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran. The admiral also understands China's junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime. During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed. While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose. Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He's turning to the Navy. As a  retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service. I realize that the Army's leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there's yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army's leadership has failed us at the strategic level.
After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East. Our Army is deployed globally, but our generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines, with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally). Perhaps the Army's Gen. Dave Petraeus will emerge as an incisive strategic thinker after he takes command in Baghdad, but his predecessors routinely got mired in tactical details and relied - fatally - on other arms of government to do the strategic thinking. The reasons are complex, ranging from service culture to educational traditions, but it's incontestable that the Navy long has produced our military's best strategic thinkers - captains and admirals able to transcend parochial interests to see the global security environment as a whole. Adm. Fallon's job is to avoid the tyranny of the moment, to see past the jumble of operational pieces and visualize how those pieces ultimately might fit together. NOR is the Iran problem the only Navy-first issue facing CENTCOM. As you read this, our ships are patrolling the coast of Somalia to intercept fleeing terrorists - and have been hunting pirates in the same waters for years. China's future development (and internal peace) is tied to dependable supplies of Middle-Eastern and African oil transiting Indian-Ocean sea lanes, as well as to shipping goods along the same routes. In a future confrontation with China, our ability to shut down the very routes we're now challenged to protect would be vital. Not least because of the botch-up in Iraq, there's a growing sense of the limitations of U.S. ground-force involvement in the Middle East. That doesn't mean we won't see further necessity-driven interventions and even other occupations, only that our strategic planners have begun to grasp that positive change in the region - if it comes at all - is going to take far longer than many of us hoped and won't always be amenable to boots-on-the-ground prodding. If we can't determine everything that happens in the Big Sandbox, we need to be able to control access to and from the playground - a classic Navy mission. And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world.
 

Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems. Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future.

 

[Kirkhill]

Iran leader's nuke diplomacy questioned By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 13, 2:42 PM ET


TEHRAN, Iran - Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy — an unusual agreement across        Iran's political spectrum, with many saying his provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country.


The criticism comes after the        U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Some critics view the sanctions as an indication that Iran must change its policy.

After a year of silence, reformists are demanding that Iran dispel fears that it is seeking to build atomic weapons, pressing for a return to former President        Mohammad Khatami's policy of suspending enrichment, a process that can produce the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.

"Resisting the U.N. Security Council resolution will put us in a more isolated position," said the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the largest reformist party.

Ahmadinejad's popularity already was weakened after his close conservative allies were defeated last month in local elections, which were widely seen as a referendum on his 18 months in power.

Even some conservatives warn his confrontational tactics are backfiring.

"Your language is so offensive ... that it shows that the nuclear issue is being dealt with a sort of stubbornness," the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said in a recent editorial.

Some lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum are considering impeaching Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki if the Security Council approves more resolutions against Iran.

"That all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously voted, against the claim by our diplomatic apparatus that there was no unanimity against Iran, shows the weakness of our diplomatic apparatus," said Noureddin Pirmoazzen, a reformist lawmaker.

Despite the criticism, Ahmadinejad has remained defiant, escalating Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States and its allies. He has repeatedly refused to suspend enrichment, even under pressure from its trade allies Russia and China. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, denying allegations from the U.S. and its allies that it is secretly trying to build a bomb.

On Saturday, Ahmadinejad met with fellow U.S. critic Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the start of a Latin America tour — his second such visit in four months. Critics say the trip was partly aimed at diverting attention from the disapproval at home.

Ahmadinejad has also distanced some of his conservative base by calling for        Israel to be "wiped off the map" and hosting a conference last month that cast doubt on the Holocaust. Many feel he has spent too much time defying the West and too little tackling Iran's domestic issues.

"The sanctions imposed on Iran are believed to have been partly due to Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric and the Holocaust conference," said political analyst Iraj Jamshidi.

The president's tactics, Jamshidi said, have turned Iran's nuclear program from a source of national pride to a hotbed of dispute.

"Ahmadinejad made two major claims in his presidential campaign: to bring oil revenues to the kitchen of every Iranian family and to protect Iran's nuclear achievements. He failed in both," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_diplomacy


So the question is:  Are Ahmadinejad and Khamenei Iran?

I have to say that,  even with their problems, the votes, the press and the opposition in Iran appear to have more strength than was ever found in the Warsaw Pact countries.  The business of separating followers and leaders seems to be fairly well advanced in Iran so the trick will be how do you complete the separation as opposed to driving the two together.

 

[rmacqueen]

The business of separating followers and leaders seems to be fairly well advanced in Iran so the trick will be how do you complete the separation as opposed to driving the two together.

Actions in Iraq will have to be measured against this as even an overt move against Iran could be twisted to create a nationalist surge in Iran wiping out the progress that has been made.

 

[baudspeed]

I thought this was a pretty interesting read. Turns out that iran is promoting an anti american fund. Interesting in concept, but i dont think that its so good for the world.

Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund
2007/1 ​

http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/ViewArticle.aspx?id=44078&source=2 < Primary Link
http://news.google.ca/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1112707835 < Secondary Google Links
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela‘s Hugo Chavez and Iran ‘s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — fiery anti-American leaders whose moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington — said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination.

"It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the (U.S.) imperialist yoke," Chavez said.

"Death to U.S. imperialism!" he said.

Iran and Venezuela are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Chavez also said Saturday that they had agreed to back an oil production cut in the cartel in order to stem a recent fall in crude prices.

"We know today there is too much crude in the market," Chavez said. "We have agreed to join our forces within OPEC ... to support a production cut and save the price of oil."

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been increasingly united by their deep-seated antagonism toward the Bush administration. Chavez has become a leading defender of Iran‘s nuclear ambitions, accusing the Washington of using the issue as a pretext to attack Tehran.

U.S. officials have accused Chavez — a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro — of authoritarian tendencies, and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said recently in an annual review of global threats that Venezuela‘s democracy was at risk.

The increasingly close relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad has alarmed some Chavez critics, who accuse him of pursuing an alliance that does not serve Venezuela‘s interests and jeopardizes its ties with the United States, the country‘s top oil buyer. Venezuela is among the top five suppliers of crude to the U.S. market.

But Chavez also said in his state of the nation address to government officials and legislators that he had personally expressed hope to a high-ranking U.S. official for better relations between their two countries.

"We shook hands and I told him: ‘I hope that everything improves,‘" Chavez said. "I‘m not anyone‘s enemy."

Chavez prompted a crash in Venezuelan share prices this past week when he announced he would seek special powers from the legislature to push through "revolutionary" reforms, including a string of nationalizations and unspecified changes to business laws and the commerce code.

He also announced plans for the state to take control of the country‘s largest telecommunications company, its electricity and natural gas sectors and four heavy crude upgrading projects now controlled by some of the world‘s top oil companies.

He said Saturday, however, that private companies would be allowed to own minority stakes in the lucrative Orinoco River basin oil projects.

The government has already taken majority ownership of all other oil-producing operations in the country through joint ventures controlled by the state oil company. Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases.


© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[peaches]

socialism run amuck!!!    :skull:

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.

That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound Video)

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.

The investigation has led some officials to conclude the attack was an "inside job" -- that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.

Investigators are looking particularly at how the attackers got U.S.-style military uniforms and SUVs similar to those used by U.S. troops. (Watch what could happen if the U.S. opts to strike Iran Video)

"'Who was behind it all?' was the fundamental question," the first official said.

Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, Iraq, on January 11, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday.

The five Iranians are still in U.S. custody.

The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said Friday.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

more on link

If they were Iranian soldiers (or their operatives) who attacked could that be considered an act of war?

 

[midget-boyd91]

Even if it is, what will they (the US) be able to do about it? A military strike via air would certainly bring Iran into a war, and the US iis too thin ATM to do any ground offensive.
But thats just things playing out in my mind so sorry for any uncalled for speculation  :blotto:

 

[Kilo_302]

My friend is in the 3rd Styker Brigade, 2ID. He personally took part in a raid which resulted in the arrest of 4 of the insurgents responsible for the attack. He says "word" around his unit is that they were either Iranian, or Iranian trained.

 

[a_majoor]

And Iran is planning their response:

http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2007/02/real-dr-evil.html

The Real Dr. Evil

It isn't just the Liberals who are congratulating themselves on bringing a dangerous new recruit on board to launch incendiary attacks against the enemy:


US officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Imad Mugniyeh, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s retaliation against western targets should President George W Bush order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list for his role in a series of high-profile attacks against the West, including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and murder of one of its passengers, a US navy diver.

Now in his mid-forties, Mugniyeh is reported to have travelled with Ahmadinejad in January this year from Tehran to Damascus, where the Iranian president met leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

The meeting has been dubbed a “terror summit” because of the presence of so many groups behind attacks on Israel, which Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe from the map.


"Bad-ass mofo" is not an official intelligence term of art, but nothing else quite defines Mugniyeh. He's been everywhere--the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, hijacking a TWA flight, kidnapping Westerners in Lebanon, bombing the Israeli embassy and Jewish cultural centre in Buenos Aires, the USS Cole bombing-- and is wanted by everybody.

In reality, he's been more of a presence in terrorist activity than Osama bin Laden.

Iran means business if it's been talking to Mugniyeh.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund

Sweet.  Anything that bleeds capital only hastens the reckoning.

 

[Kalatzi]

I thought this was a pretty interesting read. Turns out that iran is promoting an anti american fund. Interesting in concept, but i dont think that its so good for the world.

Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund
2007/1 ​

May be a reponse to the Roosevelt anti-terrorist fund - aiming to punish companies like BP-Shell that try to have their cake and eat it too, like investing in Iran as well as supplying us. I think RATF is a great idea

More here - http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,124077,00.html

 

[a_majoor]

Considering the Iranian oil industry has to import gasoline and Venezuela's standard of living is imploding (or even looking at Canada's record of State owned industries), it is hard to imagine any result other than various off shore cronies getting rich off the backs of the struggling poor of these nations.

So if that is the case, then I would be their biggest cheerleader! Drain off any productive capital from these nations so they have less to invest in mischief and mayhem, and at the same time promote the conditions for revolution at home. The fact this is self induced only makes it sweeter.

 

[DBA]

The question is when they have collapsed and are economically ruined will they follow the USSR to opening up or North Korea into tighter control and misery?