Zar

Iran has been an oil producer for a long time and was a top oil nation already before this announcement. It was already a juicy target, and although this would sweeten the pot, it doesn't fundamentally change its character.

On the surface, I don't think the announcement has much to do with political posturing, its probably about getting investment money for development, getting customer attention, etc. You have to make an annoucement to get that, don't you? When it comes to this energy stuff, I think you could say "the show must go on."

By the way, this is good news for the world. It may delay peak oil a bit. I haven't tried to calculate by how much, but it can't be a bad thing.

The SwampThing

At this current rate of oil usage, i would say it delays the crisis by about a couple of years... Not much to be happy about.
The world should have come up with a replacement years ago! Most of the time, people just leave them in the drawing boards. We need to get busy building new power plants, either nuclear or hidrogen powered. Hell, hidrogen is what we have more!!
The problem is that damn Energy lobby, wich keeps forcing the administrations to delay the switch into cleaner and more renewable power sources, like hidrogen, or even nuclear.
Nuclear power is not all that dangerous as people think. That was just a propaganda stunt, done to prevent the spreading of the technology around the world. Mainly because of the fear that such technology could be used to build other less peacefull enterprises.
If nuclear power was widespread, there would no longer be a need for coal burning power plants, the n�1 type of plant in the developing countries. Hidroelectric plants cost more, and need a water course nearby...

Iran has every right to build nuclear plants. Its their country, and their people. The iranians are very distrustfull of the americans. They saw what happened in N.Korea. The US compromised to build alternative power plants, and supply N.Korea with fuel. Because the US backed down on their word, they were forced to go ahead and build the nuclear power plants.

I doubt Iran would back down on its nuclear plants, due to american pressure. The americans are not well regarded in Iran, they still remember Mossadeq�s fall, and the Sha�s rise to power, aided by the CIA!
If Bush tries his tricks with Iran, he will know all too well the meaning of "Jihad"! Iran is not Iraq, they have 4 times more people, a fully functional army wich did not have to deal with 12 years of sanctions, and a much larger territory, filled with mountains just begging for guerrilla warfare!!
I don�t think even Bush is that stupid... Is he?!?

Krieger

The US is not going to pull its troops out of Iraq. If they did that then the people of Iraq would take power. The US wants a completely subservient government in Iraq (like the ruling Saudis/Kuwaitis). They will stay in Iraq until they either accomplish this goal, or until the Iraqi resistance forces drive them out. We can only hope that the latter occurs, because if the US quickly constructs a stable, pro-US dictatorial regime in Iraq the US will then invade/occupy Iran.


The people of Iraq must drive the invaders out of their land.

Zar

I believe you are correct. The rate of world oil usage stands at approximately 1 Billion barrels every 12 days or so. So we're talking something like one year's worth of oil here.

No, this is not going to alter the profile of Iran that much, as I said before. So, I generally disagree with the opinion in the OP.

Leviathan

Interesting thesis. We have to be *so* critical of the administration, that we'll just say *anything* connected to oil is a motivation for war, and thus, "regime change?"

Arken

It was a typo. They actually meant Se�or Oil Official. He's the new Mexican Bandito in charge of Iranian oil.

Sauron

Oil is the motivation for the Iraq war.

If WMDs were supposedly the motivation, then why didn't we invade NKOR, which has a much more advanced program, and poses the larger threat?

Vorkosigan

Been watching the news? It looks like we'll be doing that soon. If support for the Admin starts to flag, it wouldn't surprise me if we found ourselves at war with NKorea by the fall. That would give Bush a strong "Don't change horses in midstream" argument. The man is the worst disaster in our nation's history.

Vorkosigan

Leviathan

Prove oil is the motivation. And try not to see that asking you to do that means I'm a Bush hack, with stock in Exxon.

I'm sure that W.M.D. was *one* of many motivations. Other motivations are hegemonic goals, unilateral of course, stability concerns in the Middle East, the liberation of the people of Iraq, etcetera.

As far as North Korea: our history with N.K. is more of diplomatic gameplaying with the "rogue state," in contrast to that of Iraq. Whereas Hussein would stiff any envoys sent to him, North Korea has brokered deals such as the Berlin Deal, the '94 agreement under Clinton's Presidency (the Agreed Framework), and other agreements which "supposedly" would lead to peace. Additionally, invading N.K. would be much more problematic than Iraq: as China is its close neighbor, and would have something to say about that.

In sum, invading Iraq was politically more feasible, whereas, while war critics are quick to shout "North Korea!", many do not understand the reasons for *not* invading N.K.

Gurdur

Hey, don't worry, Vorkosigan, I'm sure you can find some way of blaming it all on those nasty Europeans ---- after all, only the USA is really defending democracy and civil liberties, as according to you, eh ?

Don't forget your obligatory personal abuse of anyone who thinks different, like me.