Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

US military leaders march to a softer beat on Iran

US military leaders are marching to a noticeably softer drumbeat on Iran than President George W. Bush, hoping to dispel fears that US military action against Tehran is imminent. Bush startled the world last month by raising the prospect of a "World War III" if Iran acquires the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. Days later, Vice President xxxx Cheney told a Washington think tank: "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapons."

Since then, however, top US military leaders have made it known that military action against Iran is "a last resort," one that would create enormous complications for US forces already tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have complained about the drumbeat of speculation that the United States is preparing strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, saying it harms US efforts to draw Iran onto a more positive path. "None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go," Admiral William Fallon, the head of the US Central Command, told the Financial Times this week.

A senior military official said Fallon was not alluding to the White House rhetoric on Iran but referring broadly to the swirl of media reporting about US military options against Iran's nuclear program. But the questions about US plans and intentions have been propeled at least in part by the tough talk from the White House, which has left the impression that the military and administration hardliners are at odds over how to deal with Iran. "I think there is a picture of more of a division than there really is," said a second senior military official, who, like the first, spoke on condition of anonymity. "My sense is there isn't a great chasm between the two."

But since assuming office October 1, Admiral Michael Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has expressed deep skepticism about military action against Iran. "I think we have to be very mindful of risks associated with follow-on steps which would engage us in a third country in that part of the world in any kind of conflict," he told an audience of defense experts recently. Like Mullen, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls for international efforts to squeeze Iran economically, while making clear that the military option offers little appeal. "That is a contingency -- that is, if Iran were to do something that is not smart. At this point we're focused on diplomatic and economic sanctions," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. So far, though, Iran has failed to yield to diplomatic and financial pressure to halt its uranium enrichment program, raising questions about what comes next.

"Clearly, what we'd like is for Iran to take a more productive and positive role in the region, and that is where the focus is right now. And Admiral Fallon is working that very hard right now," the military official said. There are signs that the US military is working to lower tensions with Iran in Iraq. It released nine Iranian detainees who had been accused of aiding insurgents in Iraq. At least three other Iranians remain in US custody, but the US military decided the nine could go, because they were no longer of intelligence value and posed no threat.

That step came just days after US military commanders in Iraq acknowledged a drop in the use of Iranian-made armor piercing explosives known as EFPs over the past three months. Military officials denied that the two developments were linked and said it remains unclear whether Iran slowed the flow of weapons into Iraq after a visit to Tehran in August by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. "While we welcome the fact that there has been a reduction in Iranian related attacks -- and that's everything from EFPs to rocket attacks, we still believe it is too soon to tell it's a direct result of that," Morrell said.

Whatever the cause, the US military is celebrating a sustained drop in violence in Iraq that has set the stage for a phased drawdown of the 167,000 US troops there over the next year. US saber-rattling on Iran's nuclear program, on the other hand, could lead Tehran to turn up the heat again in Iraq. Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, notes that the US military is on a "quick time horizon" in Iraq, while Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a slower-moving challenge. "So maybe we have people like Fallon ... saying to the Iranians through the back channel, 'If you guys cut it out (in Iraq), we're not going to attack you in the next year,'" he said.

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...CG4zQ0JzIrmKaA

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Chavez says oil prices would soar if U.S. attacks Iran

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday that oil prices could more than double to $200 (97 pounds) per barrel if the United States attacked Iran over a standoff about Tehran's nuclear programme. "If the United States is crazy enough to attack Iran or commit aggression against Venezuela ... oil would not be $100 but $200," Chavez told an OPEC summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh. His remarks were translated into Arabic. Chavez also said $100 per barrel was a "fair" price for oil. Oil has lapped against the $100-mark this month, prompting consumer nations to call on the exporter group to help ease price pressure by providing the market with more crude. On Friday, Saudi Arabia objected to an attempt by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over the dollar's weakness in the summit communique and the group voted the proposal out. Venezuela is a price hawk and holds some of the largest reserves outside the Middle East and is the No. 4 U.S. supplier.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...30020320071117

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

U.S. Pushing Russia, Iran Towards Gas Cartel

The short-sighted policy that the United States pursues in respect of Iran helps Russia set up a global gas monopoly of no precedent. The giant will be stronger than OPEC, warned Retired Colonel Laurence Wilkerson, who had been once the chief of staff of U.S. former Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the report that Wilkerson presented to Congress Wednesday, the potential bond of Moscow and Tehran could create a natural gas monopoly that will obscure even OPEC. What’s more, the oil assets of that bond could be consolidated, Wilkerson forecasted. Today’s short-sighted policy that the United States pursues in respect of Iran makes the implementation of this task easier for Russia, the official said. In addition to Russia-Iran bond, Wilkerson went on, the Bush administration has overlooked a few other hazards to the country’s strategic interests in the Persian Gulf, where the standoff between Washington and Tehran has already amassed too many troopers of the United States.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-11646/Gas_cartel/

In related news:

Russia readies nuclear fuel bound for Iran

Moscow pushes ahead with plans to supply Tehran with uranium after release of IAEA report, Iran welcomes move, says Russian commitment to its nuclear program 'a matter of principle'

Russia on Friday gave the clearest indication yet that it was ready to send uranium to fuel Iran's first atomic power station, upping the stakes in a diplomatic crisis surrounding Tehran's nuclear program. Russia's state-run nuclear fuel producer said inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog would later this month start sealing nuclear fuel bound for the Bushehr plant, a major step to shipping the fuel to the Bushehr plant in Iran. In a report on Iran issued on Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had "made arrangements to verify and seal the fresh fuel foreseen (for Bushehr) on Nov. 26, before shipment of the fuel from Russia to Iran". Russia has so far given no concrete date for when it will send the nuclear fuel to Bushehr, but says it would be sent six months before the plant's repeatedly delayed start-up. According to Russian forecasts, the reactor at the plant could be started up in 2008 and nuclear fuel would have to arrive at the plant six months before that.

Iran: Russian approach encouraging

Iran's ambassador to Russia on Friday said nuclear fuel deliveries to the Islamic Republic were a "matter of principle", and hoped Moscow would send them soon. "We hope that promises we have been receiving from official Russian representatives on such an important issue ... will soon be carried out and realized," Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari said. The diplomat was speaking at a news conference held simultaneously with Russia's announcement on fuel inspections. In Iran, nuclear officials welcomed the fuel delivery developments. "Russia has formally informed (the IAEA) that it is ready for the Bushehr nuclear fuel in Russia to be checked and sealed on Nov. 26," IRNA quoted Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, as saying.


"This means, from a technical and legal point of view, the fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant is ready for transfer to Iran," he said. The United States, Israel and key European Union nations suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs. But Russia, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, says there is no evidence Tehran is seeking atomic weapons. "Those offers we hear about the Bushehr AES from our Russian friends are encouraging for us," Ambassador Ansari said in Moscow. "The issue of construction at Bushehr between Russian and Iranian societies is a matter of principle," Ansari said. Tehran says a report by the IAEA this week has vindicated its repeated statements that its nuclear program was purely civilian and showed that there would be no basis for further discussion of it in the United Nations Security Council. The IAEA report, released on Thursday, said Iran had made important strides toward transparency about its nuclear activity but had yet to resolve outstanding questions. It also said Iran had expanded uranium enrichment.

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...472284,00.html

Iran: China Pulls Out of Sanctions Meeting

A London meeting of Western powers scheduled for Monday to discuss tougher sanctions on Iran has been canceled because China has pulled out, European diplomatic sources said. Representatives from Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China were to assess reports about Iran’s nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency and from the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. “There’s no meeting scheduled now because the Chinese are saying that they can’t make the date,” said a European diplomatic source. “I think it’s partly related to genuine travel difficulties, but also linked to resistance on the broader question of sanctions from that quarter.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/wo...html?ref=world

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Deepening China-Iran Ties Weaken Bid to Isolate Iran

Tehran Increasingly Important in Beijing's Energy Quest

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (L) welcomes China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi as Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki (back) looks on during a meeting in Tehran November 13, 2007

The rapidly growing relationship between Iran and China has begun to undermine international efforts to ensure that Iran cannot convert a peaceful energy program to develop a nuclear arsenal, U.S. and European officials say. The Bush administration and its allies said last week that they plan to seek new U.N. sanctions against Iran, after the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iranian officials had given inadequate answers to questions about the country's past nuclear activities. But U.S. and European officials now worry more about a Chinese veto than about opposition from Russia, which has previously assisted and defended the Iranian nuclear energy program. U.S. and European officials charged Friday that Beijing is deliberately stalling to protect its economic interests.

"China needs to play a more responsible role on Iran, needs to recognize that China is going to be very dependent in the decades ahead on Middle East oil, and, therefore, China, for its own development and its own purposes, is going to need a stable Middle East, and that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is not a prescription for stability in the Middle East," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters Friday. China now gets at least 14 percent of its imported oil from Iran, making it China's largest supplier and the source of as much as $7 billion worth of oil this year, according to David Kirsch, a manager at PFC Energy. Tehran in turn gets major arms systems from Beijing, including ballistic and cruise missiles and technical assistance for Tehran's indigenous missile program. Dozens of Chinese companies are also engaged in several other industries.

On the eve of Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi's visit to Tehran last week for talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Beijing suggested that it could reject U.S.-orchestrated efforts for a new resolution. "We believe that all parties should show patience and sincerity over this issue, while any sanctions, particularly unilateral sanctions, will do no good," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. The United States last month imposed its own tough new sanctions against Iran's military, banks and industries, in part out of frustration over stalled efforts to pass a third U.N. resolution. Two earlier U.N. resolutions, passed in December and March, call for further action if Iran does not comply in 60 days with demands that it shut down its uranium enrichment, which can be used both for energy and weapons. The latest U.S. diplomacy has dragged on for six months.

But the new Tehran-Beijing relationship is likely to further delay or dilute international diplomacy, because the two powers share a strategic vision, experts say. Both are determined to find ways to contain unchallenged U.S. power and a unipolar world, said Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. China's voracious appetite for energy has cemented the relationship, U.S. experts say. China's oil consumption is expected to grow by about 6 percent over the next two years, analysts have said. "Iran has become the engineer of China's economic growth. It may not be like Saudi Arabia is to the U.S. economy, but it's close," Berman said.

"We're presenting China with an untenable proposition. We're asking them to unilaterally divest from Iran and not offering them energy alternatives. This is not sustainable for policy-makers whose predominant priority is to maintain and expand their country's growth," Berman said. "It's not that we shouldn't ask them to scale back their relationship, but China has put a lot of its eggs in Iran's economic basket, and a sophisticated American strategy would provide alternatives." China has also announced an interest in helping two Iranian refinery projects, Kirsch said.

After meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda at the White House Friday, President Bush said they had agreed that "a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the security of the Middle East and beyond." The United States and its closest ally in Asia "are united in our efforts to change the regime's behavior through diplomacy," Bush told reporters. "We agreed that unless Iran commits to suspend enrichment, international pressure must and will grow." This week's report by the IAEA confirmed that Iran has reached the technical milestone of 3,000 centrifuges, which could produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon in a year, if all are working. Many experts believe Iran is still facing technical difficulties with its centrifuges, however.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701680_pf.html

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=31584&sectionid=351020104

Head of the US Central Command Admiral William Fallon has reiterated that Washington will not seek 'a military strategy' against Iran.

Speaking to reporters in Cairo on Sunday, Admiral Fallon said the White House seeks more 'helpful ways' to resolve Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West.

Admiral Fallon, who oversees military operations in the Middle East, said the prospect of a US strike against Iran, which has been portrayed by the media, is 'not very accurate'.

"My first objective is to try to encourage the atmosphere that will lead to a solution without military force," he added.

The US CENTCOM Chief's remarks come at a time when the Bush administration is trying to revamp its Iran policy.

Analysts believe by accusing Tehran of pursuing nuclear weaponry, Washington is attempting to manipulate public opinion.

However, IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report on Iran, which was released on Thursday, confirmed the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear activities.

MD/HGH/RE

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iraq Credits Iran for Helping to Curb Attacks by Militias

The Iraqi government on Saturday credited Iran with helping to rein in Shiite militias and stemming the flow of weapons into Iraq, helping to improve the security situation noticeably. The Iraqi government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, speaking at a lunch for reporters, also said that the Shiite-dominated government was making renewed efforts to bring back Sunni Arab ministers who have been boycotting the government for more than four months. Speaking about Iran, he said that that government had helped to persuade the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to ask his Mahdi militia to halt attacks. Mr. Sadr ordered his militia to stop using weapons in early September, and officials say that the militia’s relative restraint has helped improve stability. They say it also seems to have helped decrease the frequency of attacks with explosively formed penetrators, a powerful type of bomb that can pierce heavy armor.

Mr. Dabbagh’s comments echoed those of the American military here, who in recent days have gone out of their way to publicly acknowledge Iran’s role in helping to slow the flow of weapons into the country. Mr. Dabbagh was the first Iraqi official to say publicly that Iran had used its influence with Mr. Sadr to discourage him from using his militia for armed attacks. Since Mr. Sadr gave his order in mid-September, the numbers of unidentified bodies found on the streets of Baghdad daily have rarely exceeded a half dozen. When his militia was more active, there were often 30 or more unidentified bodies found daily.

“The freezing of the Mahdi Army makes us feel they have good intentions,” Mr. Dabbagh said. “Iran played a role in this.” Mr. Dabbagh said that the turning point came when Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki visited Iran in August and met with the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the Shiite shrine city of Mashad. Mr. Maliki told the Iranian leader that “Iran had to choose whether to support the government or any other party, and Iraq will decide according to which they choose,” Mr. Dabbagh said. The Iranians promised to help and have done so, he said. About the Parliament, Mr. Dabbagh said that the government wanted the Sunni Arab bloc to return and that he believed a government with the bloc “in it is better than one without it.”

In one concession, Prime Minister Maliki has made a point of allowing a lengthy debate and review on the execution of Sultan Hashim Ahmed, the minister of defense under former president Saddam Hussein. In September, Mr. Hashim was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to hang. Objections from some Kurds and Sunni Arabs, who believe he was not responsible for the policies he was forced to enact, have halted his execution while the judiciary and the government review the case. The cabinet has sent legislation to the Parliament softening the de-Baathification law that had presented obstacles to former Baathists’ working in government jobs. The new proposal, which has been agreed to by the Sunni Arab bloc as well as the Kurdish and Shiite leaders, would let another 10,000 people take government positions, including many Sunni Arabs. It would also guarantee that all former government employees would be eligible to collect their pensions.

Also in a move to spur reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis, the government announced it would pay one million Iraqi denars, about $812, to every displaced family who returned to its home. More than 150,000 families, roughly 900,000 Iraqis, have fled their homes because of the recent violence and about 95,000 of those families are in Baghdad, said Dr. Abdul-Samad Rahman Sultan, Iraq’s minister of displacement and migration. Thirty skeletons were found Saturday in Hor Jab, a rural Sunni Arab area on Baghdad’s southern edge that until early October was controlled by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/wo...st/18iraq.html

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

This is a major news development. Yet, as usual, nothing pertaining to it in the American main-stream news. Must keep the public deaf, dumb and blind...

Armenian

************************************************** ***************************

Critics Assail Weak Dollar at OPEC Event

A rare meeting of the heads of state of the OPEC countries ended here today on a political note, with two leaders — President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran — blaming the weakness of the United States dollar for high oil prices. Despite the best efforts of the host country, Saudi Arabia, to steer the meeting away from politics and promote OPEC’s environmental concerns, the leaders of Venezuela and Iran let loose some show-stealing statements. “The dollar is in free fall, everyone should be worried about it,” Mr. Chávez told reporters here. “The fall of the dollar is not the fall of the dollar — it’s the fall of the American empire.” During a news conference after the meeting, Mr. Ahmadinejad added: “The U.S. dollar has no economic value.” Mr. Ahmadinejad said that oil, which was hovering last week at close to $100 a barrel, was being sold currently for a “paltry sum.” And Mr. Chávez predicted that prices would rise to $200 a barrel if the United States were “crazy enough” to strike at Iran, or even at his own country.

Normally, meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are tepid affairs where ministers leave politics at the door and talk about oil inventory and supply and demand. This unusual meeting, held amid the pomp and glitter of the Saudi royal court, had been planned since last December but happened to fall at a time of renewed concern over record oil prices and the shrinking value of the dollar. At the summit’s opening ceremony on Saturday, Mr. Chávez sought to bring OPEC back to its militant and revolutionary roots. “OPEC should set itself up as an active political agent,” Mr. Chávez said, addressing about 1,000 guests in a conference center by the royal quarters. While Mr. Chávez’s 23-minute statement was brief by his own standards, it drew a gentle rebuke from King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, who chided him for talking longer than the time allotted by royal protocol. He also turned down Mr. Chávez’s plea, saying: “Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely.”

It is only the third time in OPEC’s 47-year history that such a high-level meeting has taken place. The first was in Algiers, in 1975, at the height of OPEC’s nationalist period; the second was in 2000, when the oil cartel met in Venezuela to devise a strategy to increase prices after they had collapsed to about $10 a barrel in the late 1990s. This meeting, which lasted less than 24 hours, was supposed to focus on long-term issues like the security of supplies and environmental policy. The Saudis in particular sought to reassure the world that OPEC was a reliable oil supplier. “OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets,” said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. “Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute.”

Saudi Arabia also wanted to highlight a new emphasis on protecting the environment by announcing the establishment of a $750 million fund to reduce carbon emissions. The kingdom will contribute $300 million for research into technology that captures carbon spewed by power plants or refineries and stores it underground. In addition, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar will provide $150 million each. Oil producers see climate policies that focus on oil consumption as an unfair way to curb the use of fossil fuels worldwide. By financing research into carbon emissions, Saudi Arabia says it is seeking ways to extend the use of petroleum resources at a time when global warming could lead to changes in consumer behavior in Western countries.

“We want to continue using fossil fuels while protecting the environment,” said Mohammad al-Sabban, a senior Saudi government adviser on climate change. “What we are worried about is for industrialized countries to use climate policy as a pretext to discriminate against oil.” Other ministers also expressed the more moderate views that typically emerge from an OPEC meeting. Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement about oil prices being paltry, officials from several other countries — including the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia — said that prices were too high. “We are going down uncharted territory, and everyone should be cautious,” said Odein Ajumogobia, Nigeria’s oil minister, referring to the current prices.

The weakness of the dollar proved to be even more controversial here and created frictions among members of the group. Iran — with the backing of Venezuela and OPEC’s newest member, Ecuador — worked hard to persuade the group that it should mention the falling dollar in the summit’s final declaration. But Saudi Arabia rejected Iran’s proposal, saying that such a move might provoke a “collapse” of the dollar. During a closed session on Friday that was mistakenly broadcast on an internal television circuit, Prince Saud al-Faisal said the issue was too delicate to be included in a statement. In the end, the Saudis were forced to yield a little. The final statement, while making no mention of the dollar, said OPEC would “study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC member countries.”

According to Iran, OPEC will also look for ways to establish a currency basket to offset the declining value of the dollar. But Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries are opposed to this old idea, and few analysts believe it has any chance of succeeding. It is too early to say whether the views expressed by Mr. Chávez and Mr. Ahmadinejad signaled a rift in the exceptional consensus that has sustained OPEC’s success in recent years, or whether they were merely an example of conference theatrics by countries at odds with the American government. In the end, it fell to Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, and the main architect of OPEC’s focus on business fundamentals in recent years, to underline the conference’s main message.

“Everyone knows that OPEC has renounced the principle of controlling oil prices since the 1980s,” Mr. Naimi said at a news conference on Sunday. “Since then, the price has been determined by the market. The fluctuations you are witnessing today have nothing to do with OPEC actions.”

The meeting was held in a conference center that was a gaudy mix of the palace at Versailles and Greek Revival style, with some rococo touches. It also displayed the whole range of Saudi extravagance: blue marble floors, gold-plated fixtures, and dozens of crystal chandeliers, some bigger than trucks. Vera de Ladoucette, an energy analyst with the Cambridge Energy Research Associates who was here to observe the summit, said: “This shows a new dimension to OPEC, which is the environment. This could be a defensive stance to improve their image. But also, a way of acting against anything that might reduce demand for oil.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/bu...19opec.html?hp

OPEC Interested in Non-Dollar Currency

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper." His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state exposed fissures within the 12-member cartel — especially after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling dollar in the summit's final declaration.

The hardline Iranian leader's comments also highlighted the growing challenge that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, faces from Iran and its ally Venezuela within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," Ahmadinejad told reporters after the close of the summit in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. He blamed U.S. President George W. Bush's policies for the decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries. "All participating leaders showed an interest in changing their hard currency reserves to a credible hard currency," Ahmadinejad said. "Some said producing countries should designate a single hard currency aside from the U.S. dollar ... to form the basis of our oil trade."

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had tried to direct the focus of the summit toward the question of the effect of the oil industry on the environment, but he continuously faced challenges from Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Iran and Venezuela have proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies to replace the historic link to the dollar, but they had not been able to generate support from enough fellow OPEC members — many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.

Both Iran and Venezuela have antagonistic relationships with the U.S., suggesting their proposals may have a political motivation as well. While Tehran has been in a standoff with Washington over its nuclear program, left-wing Chavez is a bitter antagonist of Bush. During Chavez's opening address to the summit on Saturday, the Venezuelan leader said OPEC should "assert itself as an active political agent." But Abdullah appeared to distance himself from Chavez's comments, saying OPEC always acted moderately and wisely. A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit's closing statement after the weekend meeting. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister even warned that even talking publicly about the currency's decline could further hurt its value.

But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised. Though the final declaration delivered Sunday did not specifically mention concern over the weak dollar, the organization directed its finance ministers to study the issue. OPEC will "study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC ... including proposals by some of the heads of state and governments in their statements to the summit," OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, reading the statement. Iran's oil minister went a step further and said OPEC will form a committee to study the dollar's affect on oil prices and investigate the possibility of a currency basket.

"We have agreed to set up a committee consisting of oil and finance ministers from OPEC countries to study the impact of the dollar on oil prices," Gholam Hussein Nozari told Dow Jones Newswires. Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said the committee would "submit to OPEC its recommendation on a basket of currencies that OPEC members will deal with." He did not give a timeline for the recommendation. The meeting in Riyadh, with heads of states and delegates from 12 of the world's biggest oil-producing nations, was the third full OPEC summit since the organization was created in 1960. The run-up to the meeting was dominated by speculation over whether OPEC would raise production following recent oil price increases that have approached $100. But cartel officials have resisted pressure to increase oil production and said they will hold off any decision until the group meets next month in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

They have also cast doubt on the effect any output hike would have on oil prices, saying the recent rise has been driven by the falling dollar and financial speculation by investment funds rather than any supply shortage. During his final remarks, el-Badri stressed he was committed to supply — but did not mention changing oil outputs. "We affirm our commitment ... to continue providing adequate, timely, efficient, economic and reliable petroleum supplies to the world market," he said.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...-1F8wD8T0AC6G0

[freakyfreaky]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Armenian,

Iran is not worried re: a U.S. attack because they are not as isolated as the U.S. government would like the public to believe. China, Russia, India, Germany all have commercial interests in Iran.

While the U.S. does not rely on Iran for its oil or refinery contracts, these other countries either do one, the other or both.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left

The British army says violence in Basra has fallen by 90% since it withdrew from the southern Iraqi city earlier this year. Around 500 British soldiers left one of Saddam Hussein's palaces in the heart of the city in early September and stopped conducting regular foot patrols. A spokesman says the Iraqi security forces still come under attack from militants in Basra, but the overall level of violence is down 90% since the British troops left. Britain is scheduled to return control of Basra province to Iraqi officials next month, officially ending Britain's combat role in Iraq.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/breaking-n...t-1221511.html

Army chief warns of overstretch: report

The head of the British army has reportedly warned of serious overstretch and morale problems among troops in excerpts from a high-level report. Sir Richard Dannatt said that the present level of operations was "unsustainable", the army is "undermanned" and troops are feeling "devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue", the Sunday Telegraph said. Britain currently has over 6,000 troops in Afghanistan -- a figure which will rise to around 7,700 by the end of the year -- and around 5,500 in Iraq. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said last month that Iraq troop numbers would be cut by more than half to 2,500 by early next year as Iraqis assume control of Basra province in the south.

Dannatt's report -- drawn from months of interviews with thousands of soldiers -- warned that increasing numbers of troops were "disillusioned" with service life and "the tank of goodwill now runs on vapour: many experienced staff are talking of leaving". "We must strive to give individuals and units ample recuperation time between operations, but I do not underestimate how difficult this will be to achieve whilst under-manned and with less robust establishments than I would like," it added. In July, Dannatt reportedly warned that the army had "almost no capacity to react to the unexpected" because of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The main opposition Conservative Party has also repeatedly warned of overstretch. In a separate article in the Sunday Telegraph, Defence Secretary Des Browne acknowledged that "we are now asking a lot of the services and their families."

"Iraq and Afghanistan place huge demands on our personnel," he wrote. "But those who claim the covenant between the government and the armed forces is in any way broken are wrong. "That does not mean that we, the government, cannot do better. "But the truth is that we strive constantly to ensure that the armed forces have the best possible package of care." Dannatt has not shied from speaking his mind on other issues -- last year, he called for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon" because they were contributing to Britain's security problems before toning down his remarks.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071118...nistanmilitary

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran virtually free of U.S. dollar in oil revenues

Iran, at odds with the West over its nuclear programme, has effectively cut all ties with the dollar when it comes to oil revenues, a top Iranian oil official said on Monday. For nearly two years, OPEC's second biggest producer has been reducing its exposure to the dollar, saying the weak U.S. currency is eroding its purchasing power. Tehran is now fetching roughly $87 a barrel on daily crude sales of 2.4 million. "This is an economic decision and we've been proven right. Over time the dollar has got weaker and weaker," Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, international affairs director of the state owned National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) told Reuters. "On a macro-economic level, nearly all of Iran's crude oil sales are now being paid for in non U.S. currencies." Ghanimifard said less than 20 percent of Iran's oil export earnings are in yen and the rest in euros. He explained that NIOC is receiving more than 80 percent of its payment for crude in currencies other than the dollar. The remainder is settled in euros through a long-standing clearing arrangement between Iran's Central Bank and various Asian governments. Iran presented its economic case against the dollar at an OPEC heads-of-state summit in Riyadh at the weekend. The Islamic Republic and anti-U.S. ally Venezuela made clear before and after the summit they would press for action, which could include pricing oil in a basket of currencies. "If there is a decision to do that, it would be a very easy procedure between the buyer's and seller's banks," said Ghanimifard. About 60 percent of Iran's overall crude sales are destined for Asia, with the remainder moving mostly into Europe and Africa. The United States has banned imports of Iranian crude since 1995.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7088101