| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Ahmadinejad warns West will suffer |
| 2006-03-10 |
| Iran's hard-line president on Thursday warned the West will suffer more than his country if it tries to stop Tehran's nuclear ambitions, vowing to press ahead with the program as the confrontation moved into the U.N. Security Council. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments came as Tehran struck an increasingly threatening tone, with the top Iranian delegate to the U.N. atomic watchdog agency warning a day earlier that the United States will face "harm and pain" if the Security Council becomes involved. "They know that they are not capable of causing the least harm to Iranian people," Ahmadinejad said during a visit to Iran's western province of Lorestan, according to the ISNA news agency. "They will suffer more." Ahmadinejad did not elaborate. Some diplomats saw the comments as a veiled threat to use oil as a weapon, though Iran's oil minister ruled out any decrease in production. Iran also has leverage with extremist groups in the Middle East that could harm U.S. interests. The move to the U.N. Security Council takes the standoff to a new level, but how much it escalates depends heavily on the council's first steps. The five permanent members with veto power — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — debated on Thursday how tough an action to take over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington says aims to produce atomic weapons. Iran denies that claim, saying it intends only to generate electricity. The council could consider sanctions, but that seemed unlikely due to opposition by Russia and China. Instead, the first response will likely be a nonbinding presidential statement. Britain has proposed that the statement ask International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report back in two weeks on Iran's compliance with IAEA resolutions. The toughest talk so far has come from Washington, where U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the United States wants the statement to include some condemnation of Iran. He said the U.S. may eventually seek a so-called Chapter 7 resolution, which can be enforced with military action. Burns suggested Wednesday that Washington would also urge its allies to move beyond the Security Council and impose targeted sanctions against Iran if it doesn't clear up the doubts surrounding its nuclear program. Russia, however, warned against dropping the diplomatic approach with Iran and — in a sign of its reluctance to condemn its ally, Tehran — said even the two-week deadline proposed by Britain was too short. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Iraq was a timely reminder of what can happen when the world turns its back on diplomacy. "We don't want to be the ones to remind (everyone) who was right and who was not in Iraq, although the answer is obvious," Lavrov said in an interview on Russian state television, remarks that highlighted a deep rift with Washington over how to handle the standoff. Former Israeli armed forces chief Moshe Yaalon said Thursday that Israel has the capacity to strike Iran and delay its nuclear program by several years, Israel TV reported. Yaalon told the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank, a single assault would not be enough, and Israel was not limited to an air attack, a possible reference to submarine-fired missiles. Speaking to reporters in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang urged the international community to "maintain restraint and patience" with regard to the Iran nuclear issue. Iran has threatened in the past to end negotiations with Russia over a compromise proposal and restart full uranium enrichment — a key step in the nuclear process that the West is trying to persuade it to give up — if it is referred to the Security Council. Iranian officials did not repeat those threats Thursday, a day after the IAEA held an intense debate over a critical report that accused Iran of withholding information on its nuclear program, possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment. Soon after the meeting ended, ElBaradei said he would send the report to the Security Council within 24 hours. "The people of Iran will not accept coercion and unjust decisions by international organizations," Ahmadinejad said, according to state television. "Enemies cannot force the Iranian people to relinquish their rights." "The era of bullying and brutality is over," he added. Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters, also was defiant, telling a group of clerics that Iran would not drop its nuclear ambitions, state television reported. "Authorities are obliged to continue toward achieving advanced technology, including nuclear energy. The people and the government will resist any force or conspiracy," he said. He charged that Washington was looking for an excuse to continue what he called a psychological war against his country. "This time they have used nuclear energy as an excuse. If Iran quits now, the case will not be over. The Americans will find another excuse," he said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #14 Welcome AlterEgo. Good to hear from you. There is a swing factor in this. Mahmoud is nuts. His driving focus is the return of the Mahdi. The lunacy factor should be considered. Striking Israel is a given. But that may be all he needs, in his mind to set the holy wheel a'rolling. I don't think he intends for Iranians to survive. This is buried deep in the "we will harm America" puffery. It's a heads up to his people, but they're not listening. I believe he said only that America would suffer more than his people. It's a heads up Iran. He expects and wants and is driving towards being nuked himself. He believes this will start the ultimate and final jihad and the arrival of his blessed Mahdi. And he does it by striking Israel - and very soon. Kimmy should be firing off a few more missiles soon, next week. Mahmoud is waiting for it. He's supposed to send the US scurrying towards NK while "negotiations" continue at the UN. Mahmoud has some nukes - more still on way from Pak or NK, weeks behind schedule which is why the penis -wagging. Two more weeks is all he needs for the ultimate suicide attack. Palestinians are expendable. They're only reason for being was to take out Israel. Mahmoud does that, just a lot more martyrs and EU outrage and so much the better. Refineries is the second wave, and that's Al Q's job. |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-03-10 21:04 |
| #13 a living Iran would never receive the benefits of such an attack. Should it take place, Israel unleashed would be a fearsome thing (survival instincts and advanced weaponry - good mix for the Israelis). Russia gains slightly in run up on oil prices, China loses - oil from Iran. Chavez loses - he'll pipe up and have an accident, and the Canadians win big on oil sands JMHO and best guess |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-10 20:21 |
| #12 If Iran did that then Iran would be glass. Game over. Somebody would do it. The responders might be the US, Israel, Saudi, India, France, England, ... Actually the list is pretty long. We might be surprised who uncloaked as being a nuke armed state. Remember, Saudi has lots of real mid-range ICBMs (bought from China) and something is on top of them that likely goes boom. Saudi paid for most of Pakistan's bomb so maybe pak bombs on the Saudi ICBMS? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-03-10 19:27 |
| #11 It seems that I asked my question poorly,will try again.If iran was to use nuclear weapons on Sunni held oil deposits,to obtain the longest term hurt on the west,what would be the targets.Include in ones consideration of targets the difficulty from fallout.I would presume from .com reply that refineries would be the answer.Attempts to google number of refineries in the middle has proved frustrating.Also would I be wrong to assume that these terminals are close(in terms of nukes) to the refineries. Howard UK-Unfortunately Joe Persia and Joe Arab(no offense meant in using these labels,just quick way to refer to average person in middle east) has never had a voice in their governments views,perhaps that is changing too. ex-lib-It is my understanding that Russia is energy exporter though on refined products I am unsure.On China I suggest that it may be willing to accept short term problems for strategic gain. |
| Posted by: AlterEgo 2006-03-10 17:34 |
| #10 Alter Ego, welcome aboard and thank you for the interesting observations about why Russia and China have been such facilitators with respect to Iran. Absolutely none of this bodes well for the region without Iran taking a pretty massive hit. The only question is how much pain we let Iran inflict before we lance the boil. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-10 12:31 |
| #9 Iran and the M²s have several serious vulnerabilities that could be exploited. phil_b at comment #7 mentioned one: petrol refining. Iran imports the majority of it. Cut this off by disabling refineries and you have one pissed off populace. The other thing is electric power. Generating plants and large transformers take months or years to procure and install. It would be nice not to destroy terminals like Karg Island and hit the critical nodes to bring the machine to a halt. The question is one of will. Iran has been playing the EUniks like fish. They openly boast about it. Everything points to a preemptive decapitation strike by the Allies (whoever they are). Iran has threatened many countries. I have a bad feeling that someone is going to take a big hit, or Iran tests a nuke before something happens. I sincerely hope that President Bush makes good on his word that Iran will not be allowed to acqure a nuclear weapon. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK 2006-03-10 11:09 |
| #8 alterego- "Thank you RBers for all your insights(the depth and variety of experiences is something else)," Good point. In a world were more and more kids leave thier home town, it is something that is sorely missed, the wisdom of our parents and grandparents. Now we have the wisdom of even more people. If we can learn to use it. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2006-03-10 09:03 |
| #7 Iran is a huge importer of petrol. Several billion dollars a year. So they are vulnerable to cutting off imports of petrol most of which come by sea. Of course hitting Iranian oil refineries would make the problem worse for them |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-10 08:46 |
| #6 Welcome, AlterEgo. It's always nice to have new, intelligent voices. Interesting questions you think up -- I look forward to reading the answers. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-10 07:02 |
| #5 AlterEgo - Of course you know I don't care for your scenario, lol, but that said, what you target depends upon the time frame you wish to deny them product / income - which I presume is your goal. I doubt I'll say anything surprising to you, but since you asked, a quick take: Immediate short-term denial means targeting finished product storage tanks and associated pipeline termini. These are the farms you see onshore which feed the terminals. Nothing to sell and no local use. Effect immediate & rebuild is measured in months. Over there, wells are completed in weeks - months at most. Not deep and excellent ambient pressure in most locations around the Gulf. Gaia has a very bad local case of acne and you're poking a zit, so to speak. Since wellheads are scattered, they really don't make very good targets... one $25K laser-guided bomb per head? Who will lase the target? Etc. Rebuild would be ala Kuwait - which turned out to be very fast - 6-8 months for hundreds... but that was with almost unlimited resources and no security issues. Pipelines, destroyed on a large scale would probably take down production for weeks to months, depending upon whether or not you also hit the concentrators, splitters, junctions, etc. The terrorist approach of poking a little hole somewhere and setting it alight - that's just an irritation. Don't tell the MSM, they think it's a major quagmiric catastrophe to shut off the pumps for a few hours and replace the damaged section, lol. Raw product tank farms. Storage until refined. How much product you take out of the system is the key here. Building the tanks isn't much. Rebuild probably in a few moths if materials available. Then more time to refill. Terminal facilities - where product is loaded onto tankers - that's months, at least... perhaps even a year or more. Different products require different gear / complexity. The facilities req'd for filling an oil tanker are simpler than for an LNG tanker, of course, and to facilitate tankers, you're talking about a platform out in water deep enough to accommodate 'em and seabed delivery lines from your storage facility onshore. I've seen simple ones and massive complex ones. Kharg Island took a few years, I'll wager. Refineries are the big daddies. Now you're talking years - and as much as a decade. A full petrochemical facility, if designed and built from scratch can take 15+ years - I saw that in Southern Thailand projects. Even from existing designs and using any gear that is salvageable, rebuild is probably still measured in years. Every refinery is custom-built for the product types and quality it will have to process. One thing to note is that you can't just flip a switch at the refinery end to shut down, then flip it back on when you've repaired everything leading to it. If the feed goes dry, I have been told that a cold restart is one complicated mother-bear. Others will have to address the time issue. I'm sure others can offer other / more info. I was a programmer who spent only a little time, personally, on a rig - to develop sim software for top-drive offshore, lol. My focus was actually tuning thermal modeling in the infinite heat-sink of the ocean, heh. Lotsa caking possible on the annular returns if you use the wrong type of drilling mud. Temps greatly affect curing times for cement and all that rot. Dunno if this helped. Others, please correct any mistakes / oversights. Thx. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-10 05:58 |
| #4 I have a hard time believing that the average Joe Persian will consider the fact that his country has been largely transformed to glass as any kind of victory. I can never see TB's govt having the balls to retaliate if we were attacked but I think the US may take a stronger line. Pure conjecture AE but never underestimate the mullahs' crazed ambitions. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2006-03-10 04:53 |
| #3 All I know is that after 9/11 the Moslems have been wanting and needing an even bigger payoff. As it turns out, the Iranians were behind 9/11 and were using their Arab "brothers" who they see as inferior. To maintain power in the eyes of the Arab nations, Iran HAS to do something big. Standing up and mouthing off to the US is a first step, which then will necessitate action. Don't know what's going to happen, but Russia and China want oil, sure enough. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-03-10 04:46 |
| #2 Long time lurker(year plus),Thank you RBers for all your insights(the depth and variety of experiences is something else),there is nothing comparable to rantburg on the web.-sentimental mush/praise off Would appreciate opinions on a disturbing scenario kicking around in my head from all your comments. Lets start with a few conditions. 1)Ahmadinejad belongs to an apocalyptic sect which believes it must prepare the way for the return of the 12th imam.He is removing the old guard(who enjoyed their power under the current status quo)and replacing them with his blooded Iran-Iraq war cadre (posted on rantburg) 2)The WOT has shown that there are many muslims who believe that are mandated to do whatever is required to fulfill their vision of the koran,for which they will be greatly rewarded in the afterlife.(clear to anyone but dhimmis) 3)Iran developes nuclear weapons.(supposition now but looking more likely each day) Scenario-Ahmadinejad fails through conventional means(support of terrorist,insurgents,economic leverage and military posturing/adventuring) to subvert the middle east governments,destroy Isreal and cripple the West.As a true believer(unlike most despots who are only concerned with keeping their share,a very large share,of the pie) he is compelled to use nuclear weapons.Odds are he is only going to get one shoot at this.Nukes Isreal and sunni held oil interest,crippling three enemies(jews,the West and sunni) at once.Maybe throw one into Europe to subdue them.If he is lucky Isreal may not be able to respond and the West may accept a 'fate accompoli'.If unlucky Iran gets nuked but he doesn't care since they're all martyrs and will be rewarded by Allah.Either way he wins under his belief system and the way is prepped for the 12th imam to lead them to final victory. This scenario explains Russia and China complicity.Putins dream of russian ascendacy would be possible due to its energy reserves.Russian power due to oil dollars and promises to keep the gas flowing to Europe.China on the hand would see Korea and Japan crippled due to lack of energy and exports(west not going to be buying much during an major economic crisis).China would suffer from the economic slowdown but its government/military has vast experience in dealing with peasant uprising.Not to mention its military maybe sated with pacific rim adventuring of its own.China's new third world oil producing friends(venezuela and angola to name a couple)may lessen the impact on them. Question for .com and other experienced oil expats,would it be better to target the oil fields or refineries and how long to bring them back on line. |
| Posted by: AlterEgo 2006-03-10 04:28 |
| #1 Better to suffer a little now than a lot later Mahmoud. I'll keep pushing for now. I can add a sweater or 2 and not drive as much if it means you and your M² pals are in historys ash bin. There is not anywhere in my town I need to go I can walk to a from. I don't need your oil or gas. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-03-10 02:43 |