Jump to content

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

This may be another major why this is good for Putin. Iran and Russia are currently disputing ~$8 Trillion of offshore oil and gas deposits in the Caspian Sea. 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Iran-Was-Swindled-Out-Of-32-Trillion.html

The Caspian Sea is actually a lake because it is enclosed completely by land and not at sea level. Revenue from lakes is split by all countries that border them. 

From 1921 to 1991 the USSR and Iran split Caspian Sea oil revenue 50/50 with a formal amended agreement in 1924. After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the four former Soviet states: Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan claimed a share and they all split the revenue 20% each.

Recently, Iran gave Russia control of nearly all their oil and gas for 50 billion/year over 5 years. Per the agreement, the Russians were to invest massively in Iran. There are no clauses holding Russia accountable if they don't, so they don't hold up their end of the bargain and have Iran over a barrel. 

Russia then dug a channel from the Caspian Sea to the Volga River and reclassified the Caspian Sea as an actual sea. If it's a sea, then the countries get a 12 mile territorial waters plus 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

Quote

This meant, effectively, that Russia could divide up the shares as it saw fit, and the way it saw fit was to benefit its existing ally, Kazakhstan, which was assigned a 28.9 percent share, and its wished-for ally, Azerbaijan, which secured a 21 percent stake, while Russia saw a slight increase, to 21 percent, while Turkmenistan’s share goes down to 17.225 percent, as it is seen as a softer touch by Russia, and Iran’s share goes down to just 11.875 percent,” said the Iran source. “This switch from 50 percent to just over 11 percent means that Iran will lose at least US$3.2 trillion in revenues from the disputed and lost value of energy products going forward,” concluded the Iran source.

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 11:19 AM, Brisketexan said:

I agree.  The Israelis would be a LOT more slick.  

Agree, but this would not be the first time they were sloppy. When this broke I was living in Dubai and no one could believe the Mossad was this bad. Dated article, but still worth a quick read. 

Quote

One year ago, an elite Mossad hit squad traveled to Dubai to kill a high-ranking member of Hamas. They completed the mission, but their covers were blown, and Israel was humiliated by the twenty-seven-minute video of their movements that was posted online for all the world to see. Ronen Bergman reveals the intricate, chilling details of the mission and investigates how Israel's vaunted spy agency did things so spectacularly wrong

https://www.gq.com/story/the-dubai-job-mossad-assassination-hamas

 

There is one thing to keep in mind. Both the Mullahs and Iman's need external enemies. I can see both of them playing stupid games. No matter what happens, the leadership tends to remain safe and these leaders are not known for caring a lot about their populations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if someone else started the war."   

"Iranian submarines periodically go down,   someday one of them might not come up, who would know why?  (Laughter in audience)   

"We could do a lot of things to increase the pressure...we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.  We could get nastier with that." 

-Patrick Clawson, director of research at Washington Institute for Near Easy Policy, (spinoff of AIPAC)

Here's a 2 minute clip of Mr. Clawson's presentation, discussing how difficult it might be to get the US into a war with Iran....eventually explaining that unprovoked attacks work best.

 This video is from 2012.

 

The full video can be seen on WINEP's website here...Clawson is surprisingly forthcoming about the methods needed to get the US involved in another war.    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-to-build-u.s.-israeli-coordination-on-preventing-an-iranian-nuclear-bre

It has been clearly and repeatedly stated by the leadership of Israel -- they want a war with Iran.   And they want the United States to start that war.  

Edited by Monster
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2019 at 9:15 AM, GRHorn said:

I’ll speak for myself as a reluctant Trump supporters in the last election, but I think my thoughts echo a lot of others. Two big reasons we voted for Trump. 

1) Conservative SC justices. He’s done pretty well here. One of the things that he’s held up his end of the bargain  

2) His relatively unorthodox, less interventionist foreign policy. He’s had a few smaller strikes against this one, but to initiate a new conflict in the Middle East with the neocons biggest prize is a huge one. Same old, same old. Gonna turn off some supporters for sure. 

How did I miss this solid gold post of pure idiocy the first time? Bravo good sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol the "faltering" deal.  More like, the deal the US unilitarily killed last year.

That article is also completely devoid of the geopolitical situation there. As I stated, our intelligence has indicated over and over again that if the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons, it’s to advance their strategic doctrine of defense/deterrence to a foreign invasion.

So let’s suppose this announcement is a hint at pursuing nukes. The timeline goes like this:

-Iran has a defensive doctrine

-The pursuit of nukes advances that doctrine

-The Trump Administration repeatedly and overtly announces its intentions to invade after crumbling a deal that was supposed to retard Iranian pursuits of such weaponry

-Fearful of an invasion from the US (why would they fear that, I wonder quietly to myself), Iran pursues nukes.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

 

What limits?  The only thing that imposed those limits was an agreement.  That you tore up.

I know that DOTARD is the expert on breaching contracts, so maybe he'll understand this -- a party can't be in breach of an agreement that's been terminated.  That's why, if you want the other party to follow the terms of your contract, you don't fucking terminate it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What limits?  The only thing that imposed those limits was an agreement.  That you tore up.

I know that DOTARD is the expert on breaching contracts, so maybe he'll understand this -- a party can't be in breach of an agreement that's been terminated.  That's why, if you want the other party to follow the terms of your contract, you don't fucking terminate it.

D9RlyXwWkAAdWPF?format=jpg&name=large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't people just do what we want them to do? Is that too much to ask?

I feel VERY MISTREATED! Why won't the Democrat Congress do something?

No collusion!

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm Iran I do everything to nuke up as fast as possible for defense reasons. 

The US government is as untrustworthy as any totalitarian regime. I wouldn't believe a thing they say either. Hell they're so untrustworthy only the biggest moron Americans believe anything they say. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

If I'm Iran I do everything to nuke up as fast as possible for defense reasons. 

The US government is as untrustworthy as any totalitarian regime. I wouldn't believe a thing they say either. Hell they're so untrustworthy only the biggest moron Americans believe anything they say. 

They will move closer to Russia, who will exploit them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

If I'm Iran I do everything to nuke up as fast as possible for defense reasons. 

The US government is as untrustworthy as any totalitarian regime. I wouldn't believe a thing they say either. Hell they're so untrustworthy only the biggest moron Americans believe anything they say. 

The NORKs have set the example. If I'm Iran I'm pointing enough ordinance at Dubai and Dammam to ensure nobody starts shit while I build a bomb to hold them off forever. 

If only we could come to agreement wherein they do not enrich uranium in return for economic opportunities. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now all it will take is some wild-eyed, inbred litter of Houthi rebels, aligned to no government whatsoever, to lob some homemade bullshit into Saudi to drag the United States into a long, expensive and speciously framed war in the Middle East where about 900 people will profit handsomely.  An illiterate band of religious fanatics now hold all the cards in our immediate military future.  Strategery circa 2019.  Bravo.  Well done. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump gets the GOP Senate to ratify a war in the MidEast, there should be public hangings. No, tarring, feathering, then public hangings. 

This would be mass murder. 

I'm not shy about using military force to smash any actual threat to the US. I don't say the above from a naive world view. 

I hate to believe that the electorate would support such a criminal endeavor. Hating to believe it doesn't meant I won't believe it when it happens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

So 1000 troops will travel half way around the world, thousands of miles from the nearest American border, for "defense"?

Donald the Dove

Hillary the Hawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has got to be the biggest false flag I've ever seen. I really question the sanity of this country for putting Republicans back in charge so quickly after Iraq. Saddam will be a walk in the park compared to Iran.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

If Trump gets the GOP Senate to ratify a war in the MidEast, there should be public hangings. No, tarring, feathering, then public hangings. 

This would be mass murder. 

I'm not shy about using military force to smash any actual threat to the US. I don't say the above from a naive world view. 

I hate to believe that the electorate would support such a criminal endeavor. Hating to believe it doesn't meant I won't believe it when it happens.

 

He will.  There won't be.

But for the first time in my life, I will absolutely take to the streets to be visible in protest.  This would be a completely unnecessary war entirely of our own making.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

If Trump gets the GOP Senate to ratify a war in the MidEast, there should be public hangings. No, tarring, feathering, then public hangings. 

This would be mass murder. 

I'm not shy about using military force to smash any actual threat to the US. I don't say the above from a naive world view. 

I hate to believe that the electorate would support such a criminal endeavor. Hating to believe it doesn't meant I won't believe it when it happens.

Have you forgotten the Iraq War?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this idiot is willing to do just about anything to delay his exit from office and inevitable prosecution. A massive Iran war might just be his Get Out of Jail Card. This country starts seeing red anytime we are at war - especially against the ME. His approval rating will go up because 'MERICA and he might just be able to convince enough of the stupid people in this country that stability is needed at the WH while we're in a cataclysmic conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that.  The environment was very different in the period immediately following 9/11.  In a lot of ways it was scarier than the current environment and much easier to sell the public on foreign intervention.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Have you forgotten the Iraq War?

The people were convinced by a deceitful president that Iraq was associated with 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction that they were plotting to use. I was against that invasion and it was a form of mass murder, but most wars are sold to the public as something that they are not (hell, look at how many people today deny that the Civil War was over slavery).

In this case, there really isn't even a fig leaf to cover the wanton cynicism and wickedness of starting this war.

The Iraq War is maybe the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...