You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran faces petrol dilemma
2006-03-13
Iran's conservative government, which draws its support from the poor who regard cheap petrol as a right, proposed spending $4 billion on petrol imports in the budget for the 12 months to 20 March 2007. However, parliament cut this to $2.5 billion, leaving the government with a tough choice.

Davoud Danesh-Jafari said: "This means we will only have imported gasoline for six months. "Making policy for the six months after that, we should either sell [imported] gasoline at its real price or ration it from the very beginning [March]."

Iran holds the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia but lacks the refining capacity to meet its own petrol demand, importing more than 40% of its colossal 60 to 70 million litres-per-day of consumption.
Gee, that sounds like a weak spot to me. Be a shame if a few refineries accidentally caught fire.
Asian and European traders watch Iran closely for any suggestion of fluctuations in demand. Petrol sells in Iran for less than nine cents a litre. Its wasteful usage contributes to heavy congestion and the dense pollution which chokes Iran's biggest cities. Tackling the petrol problem is politically unpalatable. Previous petrol price rises have spurred instant knock-on inflation in basic goods.

Many Iranian officials say Iran's dependence on imported petrol threatens national security.
Heh heh heh
But diplomats and political analysts have said the West would probably shy away from slapping sanctions on petrol sales to Iran because that could spark political volatility. Iran has been reported to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after failing to convince the world its nuclear scientists are working exclusively on power stations rather than branching into weapons.

Iran has ambitious plans to upgrade refineries over the next five years and lift daily petrol output to 120 million litres a day. Iran imports petrol from several parts of the world, including China, India and Brazil, according to Iran Daily.
Those are long supply lines, over submarine infested waters
Posted by:Steve

#13  Steve S, I hear there is a way to make a jelly out of the gasoline so it is safer to deliver by air. Maybe we would have to try that.
Posted by: JAB   2006-03-13 22:52  

#12  ...if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz won't the gas have trouble getting to them?

A rather crucial point, methinks. Of course, if they run short, we could always airlift some in. Careful with that stuff, guys! Its really flammable...Oops!
Posted by: SteveS   2006-03-13 22:02  

#11  I'm no naval strategist but if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz won't the gas have trouble getting to them?
Posted by: JAB   2006-03-13 21:13  

#10  Actually, nothing a few calls to the insurance companies won't fix.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-13 20:16  

#9  They're building an A bomb, but can't/will not build a refinery?

They're using the North Korean economic model.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-13 19:56  

#8  They're building an A bomb, but can't/will not build a refinery?
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-03-13 19:39  

#7  There is no need to do anything at the straits of Hormuz. The US can track merchant ships anywhere and intercept them anywhere. A pro-forma declared blockade, with a few destroyers in the general area, will deter pretty much everyone. If any vessels try they can be intercepted at sea in the Indian ocean or in the Persian gulf and seized, or just ordered to other ports. If any petrol tankers sneak through they can be sunk in harbor or at the terminal, but that shouldn't really be necessary.

Escalation would involve bombing internal pipelines while avoiding any permanent serious damage to infrastructure. That will stop production without burning any bridges.

Political volatility may not describe the problem. A possible reason is that a gasoline/diesel blockade will be blamed on the US and may spark a "rally round the flag" effect.

This will die away after a while when the population faces true hardship, but then there will be a negative propaganda impact of that hardship. You may recall how the Serbs and Saddam Hussein exploited these things.
Posted by: buwaya   2006-03-13 18:11  

#6  Ninety percent of their imports have to go through those same Straits of Hormuz they 'intend' to block. These folks are about as stable as a snowball in the Sahara in the summertime. We, of course, can help their self-destruction by smashing a couple of pipeline complexes while we're taking out their nuke infrastructure, and watch the fun. BTW, two can play that game of blockade, and we have tons of experience. I also hope this time we also have the cojones to take out a few "friendly" ships that want to break that blockade, regardless of country of origin.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-03-13 16:17  

#5  Six months? They believe the world will end before then.
Posted by: Jake-the-Peg   2006-03-13 15:37  

#4  Rule #1, don't ever tell your enemy something they are doing is stupid and doesn't work, or give them helpful and friendly advice, or incentive, on how to fix it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-13 15:25  

#3  Makes the idiocy of "soft power" apparent, doesn't it?

If, by "apparent" you mean a neon day-glo, UV, phosphoescent, million candle power BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious), I'd have to agree with you. In the very near future, I expect to see "soft power" listed in the Thesaurus as a synonym for "wanking".
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-13 15:17  

#2  So you have a way to deal with the M²s and you refuse to consider it? This attitute makes the word "enabling" seem tame.

Makes the idiocy of "soft power" apparent, doesn't it?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-13 13:52  

#1  But diplomats and political analysts have said the West would probably shy away from slapping sanctions on petrol sales to Iran because that could spark political volatility.

So you have a way to deal with the M²s and you refuse to consider it? This attitute makes the word "enabling" seem tame. The M²s are painting themselves into a corner. They have created an artificial demand based upon subsidized ---really subsidized---energy. They have huge ambitions for being a nuclear power, etc etc. In short they are spending their cash flows on their own dreams and not on the needs of the people. There is a great opportunity here to topple these madmen without a big military operation. At least, I hope that it is being considered. 9 cents a litre is equal to 34.1 cents/ US gallon. There is one big achilles heel to wack.
Posted by: Alaska Paul back home again   2006-03-13 13:45  

00:00