Now the US threatens India

NinjaK

They have added another country to their hit list. This time its India. When will the meddling and war mongering stop? Should we stop being such supporters of the US when it is acting like this? I think so..

The United States has threatened to impose sanctions on India if it fails to reduce its purchases of Iranian oil, according to a media report citing unnamed Obama administration officials.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-threatens-sanctions-against-india-over-iran-oil-186631&cp

Memnoch

NinjaK wrote: »

They have added another country to their hit list. This time its India. When will the meddling and war mongering stop? Should we stop being such supporters of the US when it is acting like this? I think so..

How silly. Do they really want to alienate India and result in India cosying up to China? I think they will find India far more difficult to bully than many other countries.

SamHarris

Hysterical much?

The US is well within their rights to bring up trade disputes with other soverign nations, india often does with the US in relation to such things as drug patents and what not.

That this consitutes them being placed on a "hit list" for you is more indicitive of your knowledge of the day to day running of international affairs than it is a reflection of US policy.

If you believe this will lead to some Sino-Indian pact then you know little or nothing about the two countries history, having fought 2 wars in the recent past they are very very far from throwing themselves into each others arms in an anti - US alliance, despite the fever dreams of the far left.

Jonny7

A bit of a dramatic OP, if India are determined to keep buying Iranian oil they can. If anything this benefits India as they are being offered help to negotiate equal or better deals from other oil producers.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

A bit of a dramatic OP, if India are determined to keep buying Iranian oil they can. If anything this benefits India as they are being offered help to negotiate equal or better deals from other oil producers.

I've seen it all now, that's some spin you managed to get on that argument fella. There you have it everybody, being threatened with sanctions now means you're only being offered help.

Jonny7

karma_ wrote: »

I've seen it all now, that's some spin you managed to get on that argument fella. There you have it everybody, being threatened with sanctions now means you're only being offered help.

from the article
"The US has offered India help in brokering deals with alternative suppliers including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which has offered to replace any shortfall, the agency said citing US and Indian officials."


India is in a strong position to get cheaper oil from either source.

SamHarris

Regardless if they are or not this hysterical reaction every time the US does something on the international stage using words like "hitlist" and a call to end "irish support" is really CT forum stuff.

Let the ladies wring their hands over the eeeeeevil Americans over there, here there is little to discuss concerning what doesnt even come close to consituting a mere diplomatic spat yet.

Brian?

SamHarris wrote: »

Hysterical much?

The US is well within their rights to bring up trade disputes with other soverign nations, india often does with the US in relation to such things as drug patents and what not.

That this consitutes them being placed on a "hit list" for you is more indicitive of your knowledge of the day to day running of international affairs than it is a reflection of US policy.

If you believe this will lead to some Sino-Indian pact then you know little or nothing about the two countries history, having fought 2 wars in the recent past they are very very far from throwing themselves into each others arms in an anti - US alliance, despite the fever dreams of the far left.

Wars or no wars India is much more likely to align with China than the US.

The US had pumped way too much military aid into Pakistan to ever be great friends with India.

Jonny7

Whether India, China and Japan publicly speak out against US+EU pressure, privately they all stand to benefit.

Israel aren't the only nation fearful of Iran's intentions.. neighbours such as Saudi and other gulf producers also have these concerns, and have quietly but repeatedly stated they should cover any shortfall and provide new deals should the existing and new sanctions on Iran bite and affect will Persian oil output.

In the short term it's expensive to change oil supplier, but in the medium to long-term countries like China and esp. India stand to benefit.

The US sanctions mentioned are fairly discretionary. It's just geopolitics, they'll all play it to their best interests.

wes

The US is wasting a lot of political capital over there obsession with an non-existent Iranian weapons program.

Mr.Micro

wes wrote: »

The US is wasting a lot of political capital over there obsession with an non-existent Iranian weapons program.

but its acting for little brother is it not? India should tell it to mind its own. Imagine if the big fat Americans has sanctions imposed on them and they were feeling the pinch?

SamHarris

briankeating wrote: »

Wars or no wars India is much more likely to align with China than the US.

The US had pumped way too much military aid into Pakistan to ever be great friends with India.

I doubt India and China will ignore the outstanding territorial disputes and history of conflict as easily as you do, to be honest.

SamHarris

Mr.Micro wrote: »

but its acting for little brother is it not? India should tell it to mind its own. Imagine if the big fat Americans has sanctions imposed on them and they were feeling the pinch?

The US is 23% of the world economy and develops around 65% of the worlds technology annually. Im afraid the idea that any nation ever threatening it to any real degree with sanctions is practically non existant and getting smaller as the US becomes more energy independant.

Mr.Micro

SamHarris wrote: »

The US is 23% of the world economy and develops around 65% of the worlds technology annually. Im afraid the idea that any nation ever threatening it to any real degree with sanctions is practically non existant and getting smaller as the US becomes more energy independant.

I know that, that's why its so happy dishing out medicine or pain to others.

Bullseye1

The EU should do the same to all countries who continue to support Iran until they come back to the table and open up their nuclear facility to UN inspectors and establish once and for all if they are doing this for energy or weapons .

Mr.Micro

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The EU should do the same to all countries who continue to support Iran until they come back to the table and open up their nuclear facility to UN inspectors and establish once and for all if they are doing this for energy or weapons .

Not everybody is so obsessed with what Iran is or is not doing. There are a lot of things that need to be opened up in the world and Iran is a small matter IMO blown wildly out of proportion.

sarkozy

You guys don't get what's going on. This isn't about Iranian nuclear weapons - Iran only uses those for political leverage.

It's really about Iran's third attempt to set up an oil exchange ('bourse') which trades in currencies other than the dollar.

This is all about the value of the dollar as the chief means of global US hegemony. Each time Iran has tried to open up this bourse - a sovereign decision on their part - it's been attacked in some form or other.

This is not a normal 'trade dispute' as one poster here said.

The Federal Reserve gets a percentage on all dollars in circulation because dollars are effectively loans to the US government from its financial institutions. The dollar is the global oil trading currency. And many so-called emerging countries and petro-states, including China, have enormous foreign currency reserves in dollars. These countries, while now beginning to compete with the other major economies, still have an interest in the price of the dollar, but also in moving beyond dollar hegemony.

If the hegemony of the US dollar were to be undermined by, e.g. Iran starting to trade oil in euros or renmimbi, the value of the dollar could plummet. Greater economic chaos would ensue and possiby a major war.

I'd rather see a democratically-controlled global exchange currency above national currencies and the decline of the petrodollar, but this is the reality.

Iran's nuclear weapons is the excuse for 'the West' to impose economic sanctions but it's not the real motive.

RichieC

Iran is supplying the major emerging markets. It is a huge threat to the US as they are in a great position. Anyone who thinks this is about human rights or the security of Israel is either very gullible or being disingenuous for a cause.

Jonny7

RichieC wrote: »

Iran is supplying the major emerging markets. It is a huge threat to the US as they are in a great position. Anyone who thinks this is about human rights or the security of Israel is either very gullible or being disingenuous for a cause.

How is it a "huge threat" to the US?

sarkozy

For the abovementioned reasons.

RichieC

Jonny7 wrote: »

How is it a "huge threat" to the US?

Honestly. You debate here every day and you don't understand this?

blatantrereg

Better if they'd used trade sanctions back when Iran nationalised their oil in the first place. You know - instead of knocking out their democratic government and installing a puppet dictatorship and all.

Jonny7

sarkozy wrote: »

If the hegemony of the US dollar were to be undermined by, e.g. Iran starting to trade oil in euros or renmimbi, the value of the dollar could plummet. Greater economic chaos would ensue and possiby a major war.

Well apparently they will start trading in other currencies, so we shall see if this is true or not. Personally I think its a little exaggerated.

The world conducts about two-thirds of its trade in dollars because that is the current system. "To be fair" they could switch to Euros, or a "basket" of other currencies but that just creates headaches and complications for everyone.

Its got more to do with financial common sense than some sort of global political agenda.

Jonny7

RichieC wrote: »

Honestly. You debate here every day and you don't understand this?

Countries like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela threaten(ed) to switch from the dollar for political reasons not for financial reasons. Some people obviously draw conclusions from there.

KyussBishop

blatantrereg wrote: »

Better if they'd used trade sanctions back when Iran nationalised their oil in the first place. You know - instead of knocking out their democratic government and installing a puppet dictatorship and all.

They did (British primarily, with support of US):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Crisis#Nationalization

The US use trade sanctions and massively disproportionate international 'trade' agreements (and treaties in general) to force their influence on countries all over the world, including here; these sanctions are just more overt.

sarkozy

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well apparently they will start trading in other currencies, so we shall see if this is true or not. Personally I think its a little exaggerated.

The world conducts about two-thirds of its trade in dollars because that is the current system. "To be fair" they could switch to Euros, or a "basket" of other currencies but that just creates headaches and complications for everyone.

Its got more to do with financial common sense than some sort of global political agenda.

With respect, that's a very naive analysis.

Clearly the interests of the US, Europe, multinational corporations and financial institutions overlap with the military industrial complex and US concerns of 'national security' which, for a global power, means maintaining the global status quo or a (now increasingly contested) global hegemony.

The late international relations theorist Susan Strange set out these webs of interests very well. I recommend reading her.

blatantrereg

KyussBishop wrote: »

They did (British primarily, with support of US):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Crisis#Nationalization

The US use trade sanctions and massively disproportionate international 'trade' agreements (and treaties in general) to force their influence on countries all over the world, including here; these sanctions are just more overt.

not instead of the coup d'état though.

The prime minister they overthrew was responsible for reforms increasing democratic freedom, peasants' rights and reducing inequality.

They would have been able to renegotiate at that time. They blocked exports across the board, and Iran lacked the ability to exploit its own resources effectively. The rational course was renegotiation.

They were more concerned about a display of strength. Didn't want other foreign interests getting ideas. So instead they ****ed the place up. Not rational resolution - just "might is right" bull****. And no british stake in their oil any more either I assume.

The "might is right" philosophy is further illustrated as they deal with Iran in a comparatively cautious manner now, simply because they are more aggressive now.

Jonny7

sarkozy wrote: »

With respect, that's a very naive analysis.

Clearly the interests of the US, Europe, multinational corporations and financial institutions overlap with the military industrial complex and US concerns of 'national security' which, for a global power, means maintaining the global status quo or a (now increasingly contested) global hegemony.

Countries like China, India, Russia, ME nations have huge dollar reserves why would they want to change? They are hardly being held hostage over it. The greenback-dominance will come to an eventual end, but only if and when it starts making financial sense.

Whether or not Iran were pontificating over the "petro-euro" for the last decade there would still be the current situation which is far more driven by Israeli (and regional, world) fears than the relatively minor implications of a switch to euro-trading (which is apparently soon to take place in other currencies, even gold)

The late international relations theorist Susan Strange set out these webs of interests very well. I recommend reading her.

Thanks for the recommendation