Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Iran to hold war game on closure Hormuz Strait: MP / Oil: Iran's Hormuz Strait Threats Could Wreak Global Economic Havoc

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 2:03 p.m. EST by puff6962 (4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Iran to hold war game on closure Hormuz Strait: MP

TEHRAN – MP Parviz Sorouri of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that Iran plans to practice its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important chokepoints, which represents about 30% of the world’s seaborne oil shipments.

“Currently, the Middle East region supplies 70 percent of the world’s energy needs, (most of) which are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. We will hold an exercise to close the Strait of Hormuz in the near future. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure,” ISNA quoted Sorouri as saying on Tuesday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, the chief editor of the Kayhan newspaper, in the editorial of the December 13 edition of the daily, also said that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Islamic Republic has the right to close the Strait of Hormuz if its interests in the waterway are threatened.

Pointing to efforts made by certain Western countries to drum up support for the imposition of an oil embargo on Iran, he said that the UNCLOS allows Iran to close the waterway if it is deprived of its right to export oil.

If oil sanctions are imposed on Iran, there is no reason to allow the enemies that are known for their hostility toward Iran to ship oil through the strait, which lies within Iran’s territorial waters, he said.

Shariatmadari also cited excerpts of some articles of the UNCLOS to support his argument, which goes as follows:

Article 17 - Right of innocent passage Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Article 19 - Meaning of innocent passage:

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

Article 25- Rights of protection of the coastal State:

A: The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

B: The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

In conclusion, Shariatmadari said that if the United States, European countries, and their Asian allies like Japan impose oil sanctions on Iran, they will be effectively considered the enemies of the Islamic Republic and the passage of the tankers that carry oil for them cannot be regarded as “innocent”, so Iran can block the passage of the tankers to prevent the enemies, which seek to undermine its national security, from improving their capabilities.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93496-iran-to-hold-war-game-on-closure-hormuz-strait-mp-

Oil: Iran's Hormuz Strait Threats Could Wreak Global Economic Havoc

Forbes

Crude oil prices surged on Tuesday on reports that Iran was set to begin war games in the Strait of Hormuz to practice closing down the key chokepoint which concentrates 30% of global seaborne oil shipments. Prices retracted a little after Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed the Strait remained open, and as OPEC cut its 2012 demand forecast by 100,000 barrels per day to 1.1 million daily barrels given a cooling global economy.

There is little doubt that geopolitical concerns will remain a key factor for commodity prices in 2012. Added to the Eurozone sovereign debt and competitiveness crisis and a surging budget deficit in the U.S. and U.K., conflict risk in the Middle East has escalated.

Exemplified in Tuesday’s price action, Iran’s influence on global crude oil prices is substantial. West Texas Intermediate crude prices broke the $100 mark after surging 3.5% in New York Tuesday morning to $101.25 per barrel while Brent crude, the international benchmark, jumped 3.6% to $111.10.

The pop in crude oil prices came after Iranian MP Parviz Sorouri of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee said:

Currently, the Middle East region supplies 70 percent of the world’s energy needs, (most of) which are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. We will hold an exercise to close the Strait of Hormuz in the near future. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure.

The comments, picked up by the quasi-official Iranian Student News Agency, and reported by the Tehran Times, were later complemented by a statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry noting the Strait remains open, according to Bloomberg.

Hormuz is one of the world’s most important waterways, with daily flow of about 15 million barrels of oil. That’s 90% of Persian Gulf Exports and 40% of global consumption, according to geopolitical analysts at Stratfor.

“The importance of this waterway to both American military and economic interests is difficult to overstate. Considering Washington’s more general — and fundamental — interest in securing freedom of the seas, the U.S. Navy would almost be forced to respond aggressively to any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz,” explained analysts at Stratfor. Iran’s intentions, though, are to avoid an attack and therefore would use the threat for deterrence rather than as an offensive or defensive action.

Iran is being pushed by what the analysts call a “covert intelligence war” carried on by the U.S., Israel, and other U.S. allies. A recent U.S. drone, shot down over Iranian airspace, added to other recent examples of escalation like “the defection to the West of Iranian officials with knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear program; the Iranian seizure of British servicemen in the Shatt al Arab Waterway; the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists; the use of the Stuxnet worm to cripple Iranian uranium enrichment efforts,” according to Stratfor.

On the markets front, Iran could cause substantial crude oil price movements if it chose to take action. From Stratfor:

A single ship striking a naval mine (or even a serious Iranian move to sow mines) could quickly and dramatically drive up global oil prices and maritime insurance rates. This combination is bad enough in the best of times. But the Iranian threat to the Strait of Hormuz could not be more effective than at this moment, with the world just starting to show signs of economic recovery. The shock wave of a spike in energy prices — not to mention the wider threat of a conflagration in the Persian Gulf — could leave the global economy in even worse straits than it was a year ago.

Crude oil prices are set to remain high, despite OPEC’s bearish call that demand will be lower than expected. Citi’s analysts expect global oil demand, and supply, to hit 90.3 million barrels per day, pushing Brent to an average $110 per barrel and WTI to $100 through 2012. The reversal of the Seaway Pipeline, recently sold by Conoco Phillips to Enbridge, will provide further support for WTI prices, as the bottleneck at Cushing, Oklahoma is eased and crude begins to flow into refineries owned by Exxon Mobil, BP, Marathon Petroleum, Valero Energy, and others.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/12/13/oil-irans-hormuz-strait-threats-could-wreak-global-economic-havoc/

45 Comments

45 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

From what you've posted it would appear that the Iranians have already had an impact on oil price just with their announcement.

Rising crude prices slow down recovery in both Europe and US.

Sounds like if the international community continue to insist that Iran not build nukes, it's gonna cost us.

I don't think Iran has thought very carefully about this - the last thing they want is for the US economy to grow any more slowly - that risks a repelican in the oval office.

They don't want to have to negotiate with repelicans - precisely because they will not negotiate. They'll just launch the missiles . . . .

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

There won't be any negotiations with repelicans. Or with BO, who works for the same corporate-financial complex. And the corproate-financial complex does not care which party is "in control" because ultimately THEY are in control.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Most people fail to realize that the Obama administration has bombed more countries than GWB and OG Bush combined.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

That would be an interesting comparison. Got some data?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Libya Yemen Pakistan Afghanistan Iraq ... and that's just off the top of my head. I think there's one or 2 more.

He's been bombing Yemen for a couple years through the CIA. Did you know about Yemen?

Also this makes it sound like we'll be going after the continent of Africa next once the National Defense Authorization Act gets signed into law.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

In this particular situation you may be correct.

I would point out that as candidate, Obama did change both the dialog and the course of U.S. foreign policy, all by stating that if elected he would pull out of Iraq.

We are finally pulling out. Had Bush not been forced to accept a timeline for drawdown, it isn't likely we would be here now.

Prior to Obama's speech during the election the bush admin had successfully stifled Iraqi input into any decision making regarding the length of our stay.

I think ultimately the issue revolves around whether or not the international community is willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran, and if not how much are they willing to sacrifice.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Horseshit. The reason for the withdrawal was the Iraqi's decision that US contractors would no longer have immunity from Iraqi prosecution (mid-2008).

Also, the withdrawal is bullshit. We are "leaving behind" some 80-100,000 people, including some 15,000 combat troops, "civilian" contractors (many working for DoD, CIA, NSA) and a number of "privatized supplemental forces" (mercenaries).

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What? But George W Obama said it's all over in Iraq. Sometimes I feel like we're all just puppets in the music video Land of Confusion by Genesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU9lv_WqK6k

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Horseshit. The reason for the withdrawal was the Iraqi's decision that US contractors would no longer have immunity from Iraqi prosecution (mid-2008).

It wasn't until around Feb 2008 when Obama announced he would withdraw from Iraq that the Iraqi aspiration even got acknowledgement - without that there would have been no platform for and therefore no reception of the concept of their own sovereignty and all that entails, within the parameters of U.S. foreign policy.

Also, the withdrawal is bullshit. We are "leaving behind" some 80-100,000 people,

From what I've read your numbers are inflated by a factor of ten. But in essence you are quite correct - we built the biggest embassy in the world, and we apparently have every intent on staffing it to capacity.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

all the more reason to get off our asses and improve the electrical infrastructure, and ramp up renewable electric generation, transportation, etc

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

And produce our own oil.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah- like the tar sands - bad idea.

If they don't refine it upon extraction, then it will sandblast the inside of the pipeline.

We need to change the energy consumption equation completely, and use petroleum for lubricants and things other than as a source of energy.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

There's plenty of oil offshore, and also plenty in Alaska.

Oil is still cheaper than other forms of energy given the start up times and costs of other systems.

I'm all for development and refinement of other systems, but right now, in this century, oil is still the answer.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I haven't examined the numbers myself, but I have seen disinformation regarding windmills

wind turbines are competitive, and that's why so many are going up in the east

I think if we got creative we could probably do more with hydro without disturbing the fishery too much.

We just have to eliminate resistance to such alternatives posed by the fossil fuel industry -

which as it happens -

Includes Goldman Sux

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Yes, natural gas also has promise.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

simplesimon simplemind

I don't like you very well.

I just posted this regarding energy, and if you have a response you should post it there.

I don't think for a minute we are on the same wavelength

which means you're just trying to be clever.

I don't find you clever

  • in the least.
[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Look man. There's no clever to it. I don't care what you posted in the link. I don't follow links.

Drill for oil. Drill for natural gas. Get control of the middle east so that the cost of oil is reasonable. This isn't rocket science.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

It is more about Iranian territorial integrity than oil.

Persian gulf has always been an Iranian territory.

A bit of history will shed some light on the issue:

In early 4th century AD Arab rebels probably supported by Romans who had seduced them for autonomy tried to get control of the Persian gulf and southern Iran.

Iranian king Shapur II defeated rebellious Arabs and hung 15000 of them putting holes through both their shoulders and pulled them up with ropes in Arabian sun.

Later Shapur II defeated Romans in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and killed the Roman emperor Julian during action.

US and its allies are viewed as Romans 1600 years later!

Iran has a history as opposed to United States. Americans have to understand that.

If Americans want to act like Romans they will indeed be treated like Romans. Same with Arabs. No questions asked!

[-] 1 points by SkepticismAndWonder (29) from Imperial, CA 2 years ago

Actually Julian was murdered by one of his own men, after leading a Roman legion to the gates of Ctesiphon; Sapor refused to meet him in battle.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

bull

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It is more about Iranian territorial integrity than oil.

um, what?

I thought the whole friction between Iran and the west was over it's nuclear program . . .

The west has been threatening sanctions to get the Iranians to back off of that program

This is their response

it has consequence.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

As I said in my previous post:

If US and its allies want to act as Roman Empire Whether it is oil or using an ungrounded and most likely false accusations like a nuclear program aimed at WMD and blow the horn of "consequences" which is basically a disciplinary punch word used by US administration in presidential and other governmental speeches against Iran, rest assured Iran neither cares about what US wants nor gives a damn about what US means by "consequences".

In effect it is US who should be worried about the consequences of meddling in Iran's peaceful nuclear program and trying to label it as "rogue" for political and territorial purposes.

In the end it comes down to how far US wants to go with this game of Russian Roulette??

And Further, is US willing to insure its own future benefit through this type of behavior?

US has a tendency to overlook better options and it has cost American people not only their hard earned tax money, but their image as a free people.

It is ironic that such points have to be made in an OWS forum because that's exactly what's driving Corporate greed. Their control over governmental policy both domestic and foreign and eventually their own isolation (some might argue that is exactly what corporations want) and people's alienation from their government.

This is more destructive than any WMD in the world; for a people not being able to hold their government responsible on spending their tax money the way it should be spent - for the good of people and not fat Corporations.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

US has a tendency to overlook better options

That is and has been true of most governments

most likely false accusations like a nuclear program aimed at WMD

is that likely? Because I'm not at all certain that it is

In effect it is US who should be worried about the consequences

Well, that's kinda what I said, there are consequences being felt in the west as a result of this Iranian announcement

meddling in Iran's peaceful nuclear program and trying to label it as "rogue"

I'm sure that if the Iranians really want to demonstrate their program has entirely peaceful applications there are mechanisms for them to do so. After the Bush Lie of WMD that led to Iraq I'm sure the international community is going to be much more careful in their analysis from here on out.

Especially the French. There's been friction between US and France going back to the liberation of Paris. France doesn't usually allow it's policy to be dictated by the whims of U.S. policy makers.

Who are you again?

And what's your interest in painting the Iranians as some kind of victim here?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

My interest is to tell the truth and my purpose is to expose CIA strategies that are directed by fat Corporations.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

hmm -

well . . . then I suggest you factor into your consideration a few points:

  • Valerie Plame was a CIA officer

  • The CIA used subcontractors to over see and conduct interrogations

  • The Pentagon has their own set of intel operatives, and more resources it would seem, including budget, manpower, and technology, than the CIA

What they once were is not what they are today - at least, that is my perception

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

By CIA strategies I don't mean people in CIA or Pentagon. I mean fat Corporations and their global agenda.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It's called corporate espionage. The CIA got downsized after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and they all went to the private sector.

Some of them work for organized crime.

Or the oil industry.

And they are focusing their resources on the public - world wide. Opening up new markets for exploitation -

which is probably why the International Repelican Institute helped fund training for the college kids who in turn fomented enough dissent to overthrow Milosevic.

See:

this

and Wiki on Otpor

and JOHN McCAIN attempting to Overthrow Arab and Russian governments

which in turn really makes me wonder about Occupy and the philosophy that

  • we aren't poliitical

  • both parties are the same

what a bunch of hogwash

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

First one is BS, teh second is right on. I have no idea how the Dems have brain washed you to the point of buying their BS. I can only assume you work for them.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Both parties lie and perpetuate a clear and obvious agenda. You can't reason with this guy, I'm convinced whatever it has for a brain, is completely cooked.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ya, he clearly isnt open minded enough to set his own personal opinions aside and hold his own party accountable. If he did, he would realize they are screwing him.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Hell, you'd think he is oblivious that both sides of the aisle passed SB1867, the list of similar shit is endless.

His brain is DOA.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

First one is BS,

Is it? Because someone taught them principles of counter surveillance, provided them with dead drops, and other methods of passing intel all while under the microscope of observation.

I dunno. Maybe it was a complex systems analyst . . . . you tell me . . . .

I can only assume you work for them.

Does that mean I can get paid? Because that would be really really nice.

I come by my position on the repelican party all on my own, there has been no financial incentivization, and I arrive here after years of observation.

the fuckers lie.

Global warming is right outside.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

Corporate espionage is strictly about the intellectual property, market manipulation, and Wall Street secret information.

Corporate influence on government policy and CIA is either through lobby or political interest.

Corporate global agenda through CIA and other organizations collaborating with it is something far beyond minute operations like the ones you mentioned.

It includes both domestic and foreign affairs and it is aimed at global dominance by various strategies which will only be accomplished through immoral violations of both internal and international laws.

Who said OWS is not political? Yeah, I agree that both parties are the same.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't think it is either all that complicated, or all that rigidly defined.

Gathering information, information analysis, strategy design and exploitation of division, and the methods used in each of these are applicable to any large corporation, network of alliance, or small group of people.

The morality - or lack thereof - depends on method of application and intent.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

When dealing with Corporate Conduct you need to be specific.

Trying to generalize conduct as normal behavior and dismiss it is as "necessary evil" or "methods of exploitation" or "networked alliances" is as if you are a lawyer defending their actions in court and requiring the DA or whoever is representing public interest to prove that these Corporations are indeed guilty of these accusations.

It turns out that modern philosophy has departed from the existentially driven theory of Capitalism in the sense that Capitalism is turning the sword into itself by its own explicitly "hidden" actions or dynamics which we are not supposed to criticize because they are accepted norms in this global existence!

Either way you look at it, there is no cure for it because it will either die in the hands of a new system or from self inflicted wounds. It has happened many times in history and it will happen again.

Therefore your analogy is your certificate for being a fool trying to convince others that these Corporations are in a sense immortal bodies of pure intellect that surpass any material existence through their knowledge or "know how" of surviving a methodological process in which there are those who succeed like Corporations and those who don't like everybody else who does not follow that philosophy and they can do as they please because it is a norm.

It is very sad that people like you have to beat on their empty drums to make such representations of human existence when in essence they cannot guarantee their own well being without subjecting themselves to something ephemeral like Corporations!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

wtf?

Therefore your analogy is your certificate for being a fool

well at least you are in good company - the right wing fucks all think I'm a fool too. Looks like you might be so far to the left you are really right anyway, so it's good to see you all in agreement .

I'm a fool.

No biggie.

newsflash

I never said corporations are immortal bodies of pure intellect, and really I'm not even sure wtf the rest of that paragraph means - so let me concentrate on that one phrase:

Corporations are networks of individuals. That's people.

Because they are made up of people, they are very vulnerable. They are vulnerable to greed, vanity, etc. Since it is rare that any two people agree on everything, it is possible to identify sources of difference, sources of friction, between individuals within any, any corporation, and exploit those differences for a specific purpose.

The fact that there is in existence a field of endeavor known as corporate espionage makes such activity a little bit more difficult when it comes to the most sophisticated and well funded of companies.

Still doable, but it requires increased sophistication. Begin by subverting their intel assets.

I'm not sure what you think you were saying, but hey.

I'm a fool

you said so.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 2 years ago

Well, I would say maybe in that respect you have found an idea:

To contemplate between "Corporate People" having same difficulties in life as others might have when it comes to greed, vanity, etc. (or is there a specific type of greed , vanity, etc that is exclusive to these types) and "Corporate Vulnerability" which might include other things than people.

So which one has an higher impact on "Corporate Activities".

Are there Corporations without People or without Vulnerabilities?

Or let's put it this way: "Corporate People" realizing they have Vulnerabilities they invent "Corporate Sophistication".

These are your own words only arranged differently.

Therefore the difference between being a fool and being wise is in the arrangement.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool (Shakespeare)

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

Check this too:

Russian aircraft carrier off coast of scotland - Russia has dispatched the flagship of its fleet, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov as well as the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, to the eastern Mediterranean where it will visit a naval base in Syria, in a show of support of Bashar al Assad the Syrian president facing calls for his indictment for war crimes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f1_1323850037

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

All comments here are irrelevant if they don't take into consideration the fact that both Russia and China have declared that they would take sides with Iran if it is attacked.

Knowing this, one must wonder whether western leaders intend to provoke a nuclear world war for the purpose of population reduction.

"China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War" Major General Zhang Zhaozhong http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPjxeyG-Ztw

Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4p1kD8CZX8

RT: China Says Either WW3 or New World Order http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeQ70AuoJg8

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Sovereign economies are getting harder to squeeze, and Iraqi oil is coming back online, so it's time for more market manipulation for oil speculators.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I do not believe that Goldman Sachs directs Iranian foreign policy.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I agree

but I don't think there is any question that the current Iranian announcement had a direct effect on market price. This in turn has consequences that ripple throughout both the political and the economic structures throughout both Europe and the US - there are without question those who tend to benefit from the friction - and they have access to policy makers.

Not that I want to see a nuclear armed Iran.

that Amah-dick-in-head is insane.

I think I have a solution but this website is the wrong forum.

I understand we can place concrete heads on top of cruise missiles . . .

Ten or twenty thousand ought to do the trick . . ..

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Or we could recruit all of the trolls on this forum and have them go over to Iran and join the fundamentalists there. That would make Iran see how dark the human soul can become.....they would probably then become a much more moderate government.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

or be driven straight into the abyss

when confronted with the reflection of so much of their own madness emanating from some other cultural source . . .

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

You don't have to control a country to manipulate it.