Ramificatons of a Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities
- Thread starter Cashan
- Start date
PullerRommel
New Member
I remember them saying around a year ago the IRan would use a certain section of the IRG devoted to suicide attacks on US interests worldwide
Grandstrat
New Member
You'd have to look at a number of strategic consequences/influences.
1. The sea mines that Iran has (my professor told me they have some of those nasty Italian buggers - anyone know?). Less because they may hit a navy ship, but if a tanker gets holed you have to consider the financial shocks caused by the soaring insurance rates. It won't just be oil prices that will be affected you see.
2. Iran has bigger backers than Iraq. China and Russia both have considerable stakes in the Iranian position. Notably, China holds a significant number of U.S. treasury bonds. If you proceed in a manner that irritates China, it would not be hard to flood the market and crash the dollar. This seems a little extreme from China, but the U.S. economy rides on the back of Chinese savings (not just their demand for raw materials) and this has significant strategic consequences.
3. Iran has a population of 80million, Iraq 25mil. If you think the U.S. military is having trouble now...
Iran could flood Iraq with fighters covertly in support of current insurgents. Or it could simply invade. The U.S. then finds itself with tricky decisions to make about which provinces to abandon in order to counter this - plus it is already stretched with some very worn equipment I'm not too flash on the military business so I'll leave these considerations be.
4. By a curious twist of fate, Shiite populations sit over a considerable portion of the gulf's oil. Apart from Iran itself, and in southern Iraq, Saudi oil is in the North West, over the top of which sits a significantly sized Shiite populace, which supplies a good portion of the workforce. It has agitated a couple of times and had to be put down quite heavily (if need be i'll find my essay sources I wrote on a similar topic to back myself up). If Iran were to be attacked, it would not only be oil passing through the straits that would be in danger but the actual areas of production. It would require small encouragement from Iran to persuade them to cause trouble if it was perceived the only Shiite state were in peril. Woe to him that spits on the Ummah.
These are a few to get you started. Depending on the scope of the strikes the resulting ripples could be quite broad indeed.
1. The sea mines that Iran has (my professor told me they have some of those nasty Italian buggers - anyone know?). Less because they may hit a navy ship, but if a tanker gets holed you have to consider the financial shocks caused by the soaring insurance rates. It won't just be oil prices that will be affected you see.
2. Iran has bigger backers than Iraq. China and Russia both have considerable stakes in the Iranian position. Notably, China holds a significant number of U.S. treasury bonds. If you proceed in a manner that irritates China, it would not be hard to flood the market and crash the dollar. This seems a little extreme from China, but the U.S. economy rides on the back of Chinese savings (not just their demand for raw materials) and this has significant strategic consequences.
3. Iran has a population of 80million, Iraq 25mil. If you think the U.S. military is having trouble now...
Iran could flood Iraq with fighters covertly in support of current insurgents. Or it could simply invade. The U.S. then finds itself with tricky decisions to make about which provinces to abandon in order to counter this - plus it is already stretched with some very worn equipment I'm not too flash on the military business so I'll leave these considerations be.
4. By a curious twist of fate, Shiite populations sit over a considerable portion of the gulf's oil. Apart from Iran itself, and in southern Iraq, Saudi oil is in the North West, over the top of which sits a significantly sized Shiite populace, which supplies a good portion of the workforce. It has agitated a couple of times and had to be put down quite heavily (if need be i'll find my essay sources I wrote on a similar topic to back myself up). If Iran were to be attacked, it would not only be oil passing through the straits that would be in danger but the actual areas of production. It would require small encouragement from Iran to persuade them to cause trouble if it was perceived the only Shiite state were in peril. Woe to him that spits on the Ummah.
These are a few to get you started. Depending on the scope of the strikes the resulting ripples could be quite broad indeed.
A war with iran will be all air strikes there will be no man to man fighting. Iran cant do much about usa superiour firepower. As for closing the straight of hormus maybe for a few days cause the Iranian navy will be destroyed completely and hormus will reopen,so that options gone. And finally the shia minority in eastern saudi. They are saudi citizens not iranian citizens. They will not do such a thing. If some do they will to be sent to iran cause saudis wont have traiters in their land. Plus Saudi arabia has contingency plans for this scenario there not stupid.
So to rap things up Iran cant do much agains usa. However i dont believe there will be a war. I think usa has ruled out any stike for the time bieng.
So to rap things up Iran cant do much agains usa. However i dont believe there will be a war. I think usa has ruled out any stike for the time bieng.
SaudiArabian
New Member
the negative drawback is the rise in crude oil prices. OPEC members might raise the production to meet the world's demands to overwhelm the possible cut of production of oil in Iran. i expect that the prices of oil will rise because of investors who'll buy more oil in markets.
Iran might block the straight of Hormuz , but the question is for how long ?
i see that the US military in the Gulf will be able to end such blockade within few hours by quick air strikes.
so this leaves us at the sea mines problem.
- the Shiites population in Saudi Arabia exist in Al Qatif town which is the only Shiite town in all of Saudi Arabia and all of the Eastern Province , they are less than 5% of the population of KSA (and approximately less than 33% of the population of the eastern province) , most of this small population are farmers and traders but none of them belongs to ARAMCO nor have any access to the oil fields which are heavily guarded. not even Al Qaidah was able to penetrate it.
- the Shia themselves inside Al Qatif are of different rival sects and of different religious backgrounds , the murder of one of the judges in Al Qatif about a year ago have exposed this competition for us. very few of the Shia in Saudi Arabia would respond and support Iran because thats exactly whats happened in 80-88 war.
- Iran have carried out failed attempts to unify them and aquire their loyalty , this appeared through Al Sadr terror militia official who was arrested by the Security Forces during Hajj last year and seized several Safawi fundamental books and he was trying to set up a meeting with the Shiite leaders of Al Qatif to get this loyalty.
- there are 3 SANG brigades in the eastern province not far from Al Qatif.
- Saudi Arabia and other GCC's have the capability to respond in a similar way on Iranian soil by adopting and establishing Sunni militias to hit Iran's interests.
- Iran did carry out plenty of terror attacks against GCC before but most of them were failed and did not have any considerable effects.
Iran might block the straight of Hormuz , but the question is for how long ?
i see that the US military in the Gulf will be able to end such blockade within few hours by quick air strikes.
so this leaves us at the sea mines problem.
just a comment on what you have wrote for clarification:4. By a curious twist of fate, Shiite populations sit over a considerable portion of the gulf's oil. Apart from Iran itself, and in southern Iraq, Saudi oil is in the North West, over the top of which sits a significantly sized Shiite populace, which supplies a good portion of the workforce. It has agitated a couple of times and had to be put down quite heavily (if need be i'll find my essay sources I wrote on a similar topic to back myself up). If Iran were to be attacked, it would not only be oil passing through the straits that would be in danger but the actual areas of production. It would require small encouragement from Iran to persuade them to cause trouble if it was perceived the only Shiite state were in peril. Woe to him that spits on the Ummah.
- the Shiites population in Saudi Arabia exist in Al Qatif town which is the only Shiite town in all of Saudi Arabia and all of the Eastern Province , they are less than 5% of the population of KSA (and approximately less than 33% of the population of the eastern province) , most of this small population are farmers and traders but none of them belongs to ARAMCO nor have any access to the oil fields which are heavily guarded. not even Al Qaidah was able to penetrate it.
- the Shia themselves inside Al Qatif are of different rival sects and of different religious backgrounds , the murder of one of the judges in Al Qatif about a year ago have exposed this competition for us. very few of the Shia in Saudi Arabia would respond and support Iran because thats exactly whats happened in 80-88 war.
- Iran have carried out failed attempts to unify them and aquire their loyalty , this appeared through Al Sadr terror militia official who was arrested by the Security Forces during Hajj last year and seized several Safawi fundamental books and he was trying to set up a meeting with the Shiite leaders of Al Qatif to get this loyalty.
- there are 3 SANG brigades in the eastern province not far from Al Qatif.
- Saudi Arabia and other GCC's have the capability to respond in a similar way on Iranian soil by adopting and establishing Sunni militias to hit Iran's interests.
- Iran did carry out plenty of terror attacks against GCC before but most of them were failed and did not have any considerable effects.
Stryker001
Banned Member
Russia and China will not join Iran in any sort of military action. Iran will use the terror networks it has developed to strike directly at their enemies. If they have these cells and they are present in foreign nations then they will strike one day regardless.
Europe and the Middle East will be areas of operation for terrorism and would possibly take the brunt of Iranian displeasure. Iran are already big players in the Iraqi insurgencies covertly.
However, they have battalions of suicide squads, which would try to cross the boarder into Iraq. Those who have gained power in Iraq will not be willing to give up that power to Iran if they cross the boarder into Iraq. If the Iranian military was to enter Iraq, they may not wish to leave.
Iraq is a sovereign nation and as such, a UN resolution would be passed to take heavier action against Iran, I do not think the threat to oil in gulf is as risky as Iran try to make it out to be especially with the US navy battle groups that would be entering the area.
I think the CIA want a women President to be the one who gives the order to bring the Mullahs in Tehran to account.
The price of oil will continue to rise regardless, once production in Iraq kicks in, this should work to off-set Iran influence. One of the reasons that Iran are involved in the insurgency in the first place.
The Kingdoms will support the US as Iran is a direct threat to the Kingdoms if they gain to much influence in the Middle East in the future.
Europe and the Middle East will be areas of operation for terrorism and would possibly take the brunt of Iranian displeasure. Iran are already big players in the Iraqi insurgencies covertly.
However, they have battalions of suicide squads, which would try to cross the boarder into Iraq. Those who have gained power in Iraq will not be willing to give up that power to Iran if they cross the boarder into Iraq. If the Iranian military was to enter Iraq, they may not wish to leave.
Iraq is a sovereign nation and as such, a UN resolution would be passed to take heavier action against Iran, I do not think the threat to oil in gulf is as risky as Iran try to make it out to be especially with the US navy battle groups that would be entering the area.
I think the CIA want a women President to be the one who gives the order to bring the Mullahs in Tehran to account.
The price of oil will continue to rise regardless, once production in Iraq kicks in, this should work to off-set Iran influence. One of the reasons that Iran are involved in the insurgency in the first place.
The Kingdoms will support the US as Iran is a direct threat to the Kingdoms if they gain to much influence in the Middle East in the future.
Last edited:
indian bull
Banned Member
What about the nuclear material they have? Will they pass it to terror organisations or destroy it?
Grandstrat
New Member
I can see you are Saudi Arabian but i'm interested where you got the information for this? I have a fair bit of middle eastern politics literature and it contradicts some of what you say.just a comment on what you have wrote for clarification:
- the Shiites population in Saudi Arabia exist in Al Qatif town which is the only Shiite town in all of Saudi Arabia and all of the Eastern Province , they are less than 5% of the population of KSA (and approximately less than 33% of the population of the eastern province) , most of this small population are farmers and traders but none of them belongs to ARAMCO nor have any access to the oil fields which are heavily guarded. not even Al Qaidah was able to penetrate it.
- the Shia themselves inside Al Qatif are of different rival sects and of different religious backgrounds , the murder of one of the judges in Al Qatif about a year ago have exposed this competition for us. very few of the Shia in Saudi Arabia would respond and support Iran because thats exactly whats happened in 80-88 war.
- Iran have carried out failed attempts to unify them and aquire their loyalty , this appeared through Al Sadr terror militia official who was arrested by the Security Forces during Hajj last year and seized several Safawi fundamental books and he was trying to set up a meeting with the Shiite leaders of Al Qatif to get this loyalty.
For example Vali Nasr states in his book The Shia Revival (pp 92-93 and 139) states that most of Saudi's oil workers are Shia. I'm happy to be contradicted but I can only go by what I read in the books recommended to me.
Also, were there not riots and disturbances in 1979-80?
You also say:
There is not a lot of spare capacity left in the system. There are new units coming online across the world, but certainly nothing that could alleviate the loss of Iranian oil. Also, the oil currently being pumped is the most accessible and cheapest. New oil reserves are going to cost more to pump and this is going to rise prices.OPEC members might raise the production to meet the world's demands to overwhelm the possible cut of production of oil in Iran.
Stryker001
Banned Member
Iran
I Doubt they would be reckless enough to unless a nuclear bomb via their terrorist networks, besides they are not the only ones to have access to enriched uranium and connections to insurgents. Next thing you know ones gone off in downtown Tehran.What about the nuclear material they have? Will they pass it to terror organisations or destroy it?
SaudiArabian
New Member
i have relatives in ARAMCO and one of my cousins is a student in King Fahd university for petroleum and minerals (KFUPM) who's about to get the bachelor's degree.I can see you are Saudi Arabian but i'm interested where you got the information for this?
i'll be glad to discuss themI have a fair bit of middle eastern politics literature and it contradicts some of what you say.
some books are not necessary 100% have correct information , some books are only to 'propagate' an 'idea' instead of 'correct details based on credible sources or field study' about a fact or a phenomena.For example Vali Nasr states in his book The Shia Revival (pp 92-93 and 139) states that most of Saudi's oil workers are Shia. I'm happy to be contradicted but I can only go by what I read in the books recommended to me.
Vali Nasr is an Iranian-American Shiite who would normally give that claim
but the question is whats his source for that ? ..
claiming that most of Saudi Oil workers are Shia is like saying most of the Saudi Military are Shia. does Vali Nasr or any of his readers think that the Saud's gov will spend a penny on training "Shia" to run oil facilities instead of training Tribal Sunnis loyal to the Saud's ?
the system here is selective in an unofficial manner. the Shiites of Qatif have an entire accent of their own that differs even from other residents in the eastern province , they also have different names and different family names which makes them easier to be identified and then disallow them from admition to the KFUPM , ARAMCO , the military , the government , SABIC .. etc
so for you as a reader of that book , what is Vali Nasr's source for that claim ?
did Vali Nasr mentioned how much divided Shiites are inside Al Qatif and mentioned that they have different religious backgrounds ?
did Vali Nasr mentoned that there's a small Ismaili Shiite tribe in the South west of Saudi Arabia which some of its members have attacked the Emarah building few years back ?
the disturbance that happened at that time was the take-over of the Holy Mosque by Juhaiman Al Otaibi (ex-SANG) and his brother-in-law Muhammad Al Qahtani (who claimed to be the awaiten Messiah). Shiite scholars announced their support for Juhaiman and the disturbance Shiites caused was unworth mentioning compared to what happened in Makkah.Also, were there not riots and disturbances in 1979-80?
Grandstrat
New Member
I'm at uni so I can't go check until I get home (will later) but I thought i'd post what a quick web check shows.
In: The New York Times - "THREATS AND RESPONSES: DESERT TARGETS; Pro-Qaeda Oil Workers A Sabotage Risk for Saudis" - Jeff Gerth Published: February 13, 2003 (can't post links yet)
I quote: "The government of Saudi Arabia has increased security around its oil fields and processing centers after the discovery that employees of the state-owned oil company sympathetic to Al Qaeda were discussing sabotage plans late last summer, American and Saudi officials say."
In it he quotes Abdullah al-Saif an Aramco senior vice president saying that the treatment of Shiites at the company was ''not an issue.'' This indicates that Shiites are in fact employed by Aramco. Gerth points out that Shiites are kept out of sensitive jobs like computer operations. However he also notes that a strike or a shutdown was a real risk (he says this in relation to the U.S. attack on Iraq, but it is an important fact that a strike or a shutdown would be a big problem for Aramco).
Gerth illustrates, and this is significant as far as the reliability of Saudi sources are concerned, that Saudi's downplay the significance of the Shiite problem. Whereas outside observers like other Oil executives and government officials say there is some concern. He quotes but does not name a Saudi Oil executive saying they are: ''more concerned about the threat from inside the country than from Iraq"
So it seems to me that there does in fact exist a Shiite segment of the workforce that could pose a problem for Aramco. Even if at the very minimum it is only able to go on strike.
What do you think?
In: The New York Times - "THREATS AND RESPONSES: DESERT TARGETS; Pro-Qaeda Oil Workers A Sabotage Risk for Saudis" - Jeff Gerth Published: February 13, 2003 (can't post links yet)
I quote: "The government of Saudi Arabia has increased security around its oil fields and processing centers after the discovery that employees of the state-owned oil company sympathetic to Al Qaeda were discussing sabotage plans late last summer, American and Saudi officials say."
In it he quotes Abdullah al-Saif an Aramco senior vice president saying that the treatment of Shiites at the company was ''not an issue.'' This indicates that Shiites are in fact employed by Aramco. Gerth points out that Shiites are kept out of sensitive jobs like computer operations. However he also notes that a strike or a shutdown was a real risk (he says this in relation to the U.S. attack on Iraq, but it is an important fact that a strike or a shutdown would be a big problem for Aramco).
Gerth illustrates, and this is significant as far as the reliability of Saudi sources are concerned, that Saudi's downplay the significance of the Shiite problem. Whereas outside observers like other Oil executives and government officials say there is some concern. He quotes but does not name a Saudi Oil executive saying they are: ''more concerned about the threat from inside the country than from Iraq"
So it seems to me that there does in fact exist a Shiite segment of the workforce that could pose a problem for Aramco. Even if at the very minimum it is only able to go on strike.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Stryker001
Banned Member
Iran
I think that is an area that Iran would exploited if they ever got in the position to do so. The Kingdoms provide stability to the Middle East, without them the Middle East would be in turmOIL.
I think that is an area that Iran would exploited if they ever got in the position to do so. The Kingdoms provide stability to the Middle East, without them the Middle East would be in turmOIL.