Is Ahmadinejad At GCC summit looking for a face-saving solution?

[Grand Danois]

Some very informative articles (and papers). Of particular interest was Wood et al. who amongst many things, ask:

Does Iran really seek energy independence? On the basis of the economic evidence both within the nuclear program and in related energy industries, we conclude that Iran is not seriously pursuing energy independence, yet is attempting to justify a nuclear program motivated by a weapons objective under this rubric.

They conclude Iran is not serious about the energy independence because there is only Uranium deposits for 7 years worth of fuel!!!

They also conclude that

Another point to consider is that if a country such as Iran has been found ‘‘incapable of maximizing profit, minimizing cost, or containing explosive demand in subsidized products’’ in an enterprise in which it has more than 50
years of operating experience utilizing technologies with low levels of sophistication, it is questionable how such a country could manage a highly technical nuclear-powered enterprise that requires a rigorous regulatory body, highly trained technical staff, and apervasive culture of safety to operate successfully.

Which corroborate another thought I've had - is there a business case for Iran exporting processed nuclear fuel and technology? Apparently no, there is not enough raw materials domestically, and the infrastructure and expertise would be a drain on brains and resources.

It is just simply a no go as a business.

In the findings they write

Iran’s management of its natural gas sector is inconsistent with a serious program oriented toward energy independence. In 2003, it wasted 9.38 percent of its gross production* almost 430 billion cubic feet (ft3).12 The natural gas that is flared represents a total energy resource equivalent to more than four 1,000 MWe reactors. Even achieving the Middle Eastern average flaring efficiency would allow Iran to generate more than two 1,000-MWe reactors’ worth of electrical power*using a resource that is now wasted.

plus they calculate that nuclear power is more expensive than NG in the case of Iran. It also punches a big hole in the Iranian argument that the flared gas is not recoverable - if the other ME states does it. (!)

I knew it wasn't perfect, but quite frankly, it seems the energy sector in Iran is a [text-deleted] scandal of mismanagement.

So if there isn't an energy independence case to be made (limited doemstic fuel supplies); there is no economic case (only works on subsidies, including as export product), and it even would be significantly cheaper to use NG, then how is it any wonder that Western intelligence (and everyone else) thinks the purpose is weapons production?

My speculation is that it is a mix of

• plain poor management
• prestige (domestic/regional)
• having a lever to turn confrontation with the big bad U.S. on/off (it takes two to tango), legitimacy (domestic)
• regional power & influence

The Economist article I only time to do a cursory read of, but didn't have the time to read it properly. Will definitely keep the link. An excerpt

But in many ways, the sparring capitals look more like mirror images than polar opposites. On different scales, both Iranians and Americans tend to take an imperial view. Both governments demonise the other. They use past resentments to reap political rewards by looking tough.

Two to tango...

Btw, using NG instead of nuclear wouldn't have an impact on CO2 emissions, but it would be nice not to have this unethical waste.

Lackadaisical, meh.

Consider - the gas is being burned as we type, but to no purpose, just making big flames above oil wells. Trapping it & burning where it would be useful would add nothing to the CO2 output. To the extent that it replaces other fossil fuel, it will reduce CO2 output.

Various sources. e.g.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10181134

Has prompted a denial from the Iranian government, which insists much of the gas is not economically recoverable - but says nothing about why it is so lackadaisical about recovering that part which it admits is worth it.

This article points out some other energy- and cost-efficient investments Iran could make in fuel, with immensely better returns than its current nuclear programme -

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol14/141/141wood.pdf

Slide 21 of this official Iranian presentation shows that in 1994, 11% of Iranian CO2 emissions were due to flaring -

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/presentations/iranncpresent.pdf

 

[swerve]

...
My speculation is that it is a mix of

• plain poor management
• prestige (domestic/regional)
• having a lever to turn confrontation with the big bad U.S. on/off (it takes two to tango), legitimacy (domestic)
• regional power & influence

...

I agree. I suspect Iran - even under Ahmedinejad - is not really interested in a significant nuclear arsenal, knowing that against a real nuclear power, such an arsenal would serve no military purpose, but would like the ability to produce one, as leverage. And, as you say, for prestige.

BTW, Iran is reducing flaring. Some - and an increasing proportion - of that gas is used productively. But the proportion is much lower than average, & the recent level of investment in capturing it, while higher than in the past, is still low by the standards of most of their neighbours. I put that down to your first point, plain bad management. They're not stupid: they know the gas is worth trapping. Their internal reports say so, & we know that because most of them are published, like other routine government papers.

 

[Awang se]

all of you that support attack on Iran, are you that eager to pay higher price for your fuel? or are you jog or ride a bicycle to work? personally, i've been quite depressed recently since i have to pay more for everything. fuel price increased also affected the price of other consumer goods. imagined what have happen if Iran retaliated against the straits of Hormuz. i pray the attack never take place.

 

[SaudiArabian]

all of you that support attack on Iran, are you that eager to pay higher price for your fuel? or are you jog or ride a bicycle to work? personally, i've been quite depressed recently since i have to pay more for everything. fuel price increased also affected the price of other consumer goods. imagined what have happen if Iran retaliated against the straits of Hormuz. i pray the attack never take place.

yes , otherwise we'll pay a much more higher price if Iran became nuclear-armed. because if Iran got nuclear then it will give it huge power and influence and might give it an ability to stage attacks or begin an invasion against GCC's and Iraq without fear of the international community.

 

[merocaine]

yes , otherwise we'll pay a much more higher price if Iran became nuclear-armed. because if Iran got nuclear then it will give it huge power and influence and might give it an ability to stage attacks or begin an invasion against GCC's and Iraq without fear of the international community.

AFAIK Iran doesent have to invade anyone, with or without N. weapons. Iraq is a friendly country, as is Afganistan. Why would it invade? what could it possibly gain that it can't be gained by patience and diplomacy?
They have already shown that they are no mad dog, they have suspended there research into N. weapons, due to pressure from the international community, they have scaled down there military aid to the Iraq militias, due to US pressure. In this they have acted in a rational manner.

Do you really think they would invade the Gulf States, and expect no reaction from the US, not even the rest of the west/china/russia/middle east? It would be a huge gamble even N. armed. Since the Revolution in Iran seems to be the most important motivator to the Iranians I can't see them ever risking it for the Mirage of Gulf Military Domination.

 

[Stryker001]

^

A strike against Iran with limited civil casualties could well be the downfall of the Mullahs and those puppets whom speak for them, things are not good in Iran and the Iranians are cultured people.

This could be the fatal mistake by the masterminds in Tehran, at the end of the day they will be more concerned with control over their own population.

They use the illusion that possible nuclear power (weaponry) will fix the problems that cripple the Iranian population. This is simple not the cause.

 

[merocaine]

A strike against Iran with limited civil casualties could well be the downfall of the Mullahs and those puppets whom speak for them, things are not good in Iran and the Iranians are cultured people.

#

What would you strike? There non existant weapons programme? There (for better or for worse) elected goverment? There Religious Leaders? hmmm yes I could see the Iranian people would be really pleased with that result. O thank you for attacking us without provocation! just hang on a second while we elect a secular democratic western complient goverment!

 

[Stryker001]

Iran

#

What would you strike? There non existant weapons programme? There (for better or for worse) elected goverment? There Religious Leaders? hmmm yes I could see the Iranian people would be really pleased with that result. O thank you for attacking us without provocation! just hang on a second while we elect a secular democratic western complient goverment!

Strikes will work in conjunction with sanctions against the Quds, and the rest of Iran's Republican Guards and their other military assets. Their nuclear facilities will not be hit in the first strikes as nobody would telegraph via the Russians that a strike will occur, they have scientists there. The first strikes will be the warning to remove their personnel.


Then the heavy water facilities etc will be targeted. A similar strategy to Gulf war one and two, their military machine will be broken just as Saddam's was left dead on the road from Kuwait.

 

[merocaine]

Strikes will work in conjunction with sanctions against the Quds, and the rest of Iran's Republican Guards and their other military assets

I believe you have the wrong country, Republican Guards = Syria, but I guess as long as you got the general region you should be OK.

Their nuclear facilities will not be hit in the first strikes as nobody would telegraph via the Russians that a strike will occur, they have scientists there. The first strikes will be the warning to remove their personnel.

Looks like you thought of everything. Realpolitik's not dead yet folks, be carefull though, you might not want to look weak in front of the Russians, remember never act weak in front of the Russians, they respect strenght.

Then the heavy water facilities etc will be targeted. A similar strategy to Gulf war one and two, their military machine will be broken just as Saddam's was left dead on the road from Kuwait.

Damn you have thought of everything, you should really write this shit down man, you ever thought of becoming a Pentagon analysist?

 

[funtz]

Meanwhile the world waits to get their hands on some of that all important oil.
I believe China is going in big,

Sinopec, China's biggest oil refiner and petrochemicals producer and its second largest crude oil producer, signed a deal over over the weekend to invest $2 billion in Iran's Yadavaran oil field.
"We're deeply disappointed and disturbed at the reports (of the deal), and we'll be making this clear to the Chinese authorities," said U.S. State Department spokesman Jessica Simon.
Iran estimates the Yadavaran field holds 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil and 2.7 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7142077

Rest of the world is waiting for the US and the rest of them to get things done, no one can wait forever now that Iraqi oil is going to be the sole property of you know who.

 

[Stryker001]

Russia

Killing Russian scientist achieves nothing, what people see as war others see as business.


The Iranians will then need to start their nuclear program again and buy Russian military equipment to replace the assets that have been destroyed. If they can afford it, the Russians will earn a lot of money out of this matter.

 

[metro]

Killing Russian scientist achieves nothing, what people see as war others see as business.


The Iranians will then need to start their nuclear program again and buy Russian military equipment to replace the assets that have been destroyed. If they can afford it, the Russians will earn a lot of money out of this matter.

-Just as a quick point of clarification (something merocaine pointed out), the "R" in IRGC refers to "Revolutionary." Iraq had its "republican guards," and as noted, Syria has "Republican Guards."

-IF (emphasis), in the case of US strikes on Iran, I agree that known military assets will be eliminated first--attempting to achieve air superiority as quickly as possible, as many threats on the ground/water which could pose a retaliatory threat, and if the intel is there, targeting the leadership.

-IMHO opinion, the last concern for us(a) is Russian Scientists becoming "collateral damage" in strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone isn't something that I'd assume we'd be worried about. People with nuclear know-how are valuable, both as assets and targets. Not that every or any Russian Nuclear Scientist(S) is in Iran (obviously), there could be members of their "B Team". However, a point is made that being in the wrong place at the wrong time is very dangerous (i.e. The chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time rise rapidly for those who might consider working on something like an Iranian program--as if it isn't a dangerous occupation in the first place). So, I would not "warn" anyone by dropping leaflets, giving time, etc. If Russia complains about losing their scientists, "We're sorry! What were your nuclear scientists doing in Iran... at their nuclear facilities"? If it came to strikes, I wouldn't do what Hillary Clinton demands either; I wouldn't go debate it in front of congress. Instead, I'd have Oprah add (Something like) SUN TZU to her reading list and send an autographed to Hillary with Cliff's notes.

-If Iran doesn't have a parallel program (or two) inside/outside the country, than destroying a large part of what we know exists, will IMO put Iran out of the business of building a Nuclear Program. I don't think they can fund another attempt unless they were to decide a nuclear program is more important than the existence of an economy. I believe Iran is already feeling the problems of a poor economy. IMO, the economic/trade sanctions are the best way to go at this point. A caveat to that is, the sanctions must actually be enforced--as sanctions in name are no more than words, while sanctions enforced, can be a powerful tool.

-As I think you noted, Iran has an intelligent population. IMO, I'd make it as clear as possible that the people will have the full support of the West if they change things in their Gov't... Including lifting the sanctions immediately, the US opening full relations, and significant economic aid to help a recovery.

peace

 

[Stryker001]

Russia/Iran

Re: Russian scientists point noted although why such hostility, it is not internationally illegal for such work to take place.


I think Putin would take offense to such matters as if the shoe was on the other foot, western countries would not like their scientists killed.


Thankfully you don't make the rules.


Next time I speak with Mahmoud I will mention it.

 

[metro]

Re: Russian scientists point noted although why such hostility, it is not internationally illegal for such work to take place.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask, "why such hostilities"? If you took what I wrote as being hostile towards you, that isn't/wasn't my intent at all and I do hope you understand!
I was just responding to something that right now, is nothing more than a completely hypothetical situation.
In regards to any Russian Scientists in this scenario, I'm not advocating going out of our way to kill them. If strikes occurred, it would only happen if diplomatic efforts became useless, and/or countries were making it impossible to put stronger sanctions in place (or enforce them).

I'd hope we wouldn't tell Russia, "remove any personal by the end of the day, as we are going to begin air strikes tomorrow at sun down.. and BTW please don't tell anyone. If the Iranians ask why is everyone leaving, tell them it's a Russian holiday." Absurd? I think so. If no Russians were there, only North Korean scientists would you "tip them off"?

I think Putin would take offense to such matters as if the shoe was on the other foot, western countries would not like their scientists killed.

I think Putin would take offense as well. It wouldn't be the first nor the last time.
I'd feel the same way no matter the nationality of scientists involved in building the said nuclear program.

Thankfully you don't make the rules.

I can't think of anything for which, I make any rules. I really can't respond here as I'm not sure exactly which rules you are talking about here?

Next time I speak with Mahmoud I will mention it.

:unknown

cheers

 

[merocaine]

I wouldn't do what Hillary Clinton demands either; I wouldn't go debate it in front of congress. Instead, I'd have Oprah add (Something like) SUN TZU to her reading list and send an autographed to Hillary with Cliff's notes.

nfloorl:

On a serious note, the recent intelligence estimate seems to have put the kabosh on any military strikes for the forseeable future.
Looks like the "reality based community" won this round for the Iranians.
The Russians are going back to work at Busher too, they have resolved there "financial" problems with the Iranians. If the Russians taking a mass holiday is a sign of imminent air strikes, perhaps the return to work of the engineers is a sign that air strikes are increasingly unlightly.

 

[metro]

nfloorl:

I hope you're laughing with me, not at me. I don't want another president who has serious problems with strategery

On a serious note, the recent intelligence estimate seems to have put the kabosh on any military strikes for the forseeable future.
Looks like the "reality based community" won this round for the Iranians.
The Russians are going back to work at Busher too, they have resolved there "financial" problems with the Iranians. If the Russians taking a mass holiday is a sign of imminent air strikes, perhaps the return to work of the engineers is a sign that air strikes are increasingly unlightly.

I agree with you RE: strikes. The last thing anyone in the world needs is to see missiles flying everywhere. As I said before, I believe if the Iranian people change their gov't on their own, it would help reduce tension in the region a great deal.

Although Russia is touched on in this thread, I think their decision making is much more complex, and mostly deals with politics. Something that perhaps another thread could cover in more depth...?

Cheers

 

[Stryker001]

There is a lot of pressure on Iran, one of the reasons the rhetoric has been toned down. In addition, the proposed missile defense shield has caused more pressure on Iran. They refused the Russian offer for the supply of enriched uranium. This was done so the Russians could table the proposal of a joint missile defense shield.

People inside the Iranian regime who are rational relies that air strikes are possible and the threat is very real. The message I see from Iraq is that the Americans at whatever the cost will come to your country and take it all away. Iraq sent a strong message to dictators regardless of what is occurring inside the country today

One of the reasons that Libya got out of state sponsored terrorism better to be a rich man and stay quite than lose it all or become a corpse.


(subnote: I wouldn’t have bought French plans, if you fight a war they don’t agree with they won’t supply parts, should have bought Russian planes) Also the French want to get involved via assistance of the Iranian civilian nuclear program.


Having said that, Russia use to be big players in the Middle East, with links to terror groups 1983 all part of the cold war and the method of war by proxy. Now they are reasserting their presence in the region and they are using Iran and their nuclear programs to do.

What America has to ask herself are you in a covert war against the Russians if so then you could kill their scientists. I think that Gates ex CIA and a Russian expert taking up the position inside the Defense Department clearly suggest this maybe the case.

 

[Chrom]

What America has to ask herself are you in a covert war against the Russians if so then you could kill their scientists. I think that Gates ex CIA and a Russian expert taking up the position inside the Defense Department clearly suggest this maybe the case.

This will immediatly backfire - i mean, russians then also could kill USA scientists. Do anyone really want to open this can of worms? I pretty much doubt so...

 

[Incognito129]

Russia's making money off Iran. Putin's trying to get the Russian economy back into shape. If anything the Russians are very rational and do whatever is in the best interests of any situation.

Really we should be looking at Israel. The only country to benefit from Iran being bombed is Israel. Not even the US has anything to gain from Iran being bombed.