Top oil trader says Iran not feeling pain from sanctions

cyberhog · 10-03-2012 07:07AM #1

(Reuters) - An increase in world oil prices has more than compensated Iran for revenues lost to lower crude exports because of sanctions imposed by the West, the head of the world's leading oil trader said Tuesday.

...

"The Iranians now want the price as high as possible as they've got less volumes to sell. I reckon they are probably quite close to winning based on the numbers. That was what everybody in the industry always thought would be the likely result," said Taylor.

"The politicians are all avoiding the subject at the moment but as you know oil is extremely expensive, especially in euros," he said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/21/uk-iran-vitol-idUKTRE81K15R20120221

Higher oil prices are only causing economic pain for western economies but supposedly intelligent politicians claim the sanctions are having the desired effect.

“Iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way,” the president said Tuesday.

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=59488

It's that kind of detachment from reality that will prolong the economic suffering for the West while Iran will just find new ways to sell its oil.

Chuck Stone · 11-03-2012 07:53PM

More own goals in the west. They're probably laughing up their sleeves in China and India.

cyberhog · 13-03-2012 07:10AM

Obama suffers a self-inflicted wound.

Americans by a broad 65-26 percent disapprove of how the president is handling the price of gas, which has gained 49 cents a gallon this year to an average $3.79. Strong critics outnumber strong approvers by nearly 4-1. And it's important: A vast 89 percent are concerned about the recent run-up in gas prices; 66 percent are "very" concerned about it.

The survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, shows a broader impact, underscoring the risk to Obama. His approval rating on handling the economy overall has lost 6 points in a month, to 38 percent, a mere 3 points from his career low in October. Intensity again is highly negative: Fifty percent strongly disapprove of the president's work on the economy, up 9 points to a new high in his presidency.

http://news.yahoo.com/election-expectations-move-obamas-way-yet-rising-gas-040142901--abc-news.html

If he wants to avoid a big backlash from voters at the next election he may have to grant Iran's biggest customers waivers from the sanctions.

"With oil inventories and spare OPEC production capacity running low, consumers don't have much buffer against additional disruptions in supply," said Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium Group and a former State Department adviser.

"That means the needle the administration has to thread to pressure Iran without raising oil prices has gotten even smaller."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/03/01/Sanctions-Squeeze-Iran-Oil-Exports.aspx

It doesn't look like Obama will be able to satisfy Israel's craving for more blood.

Eggy Baby! · 13-03-2012 02:18PM

Brilliant that "neutral" minnow Ireland supported the EU embargo..like the economy needs unstable or expensive gas supplies at this particular time!

Son Of A Vidic · 13-03-2012 11:55PM

Unfortunately the sanctions will only affect the lower strata of Iranian society. But isn't it all very reminiscent of the Saddam sanctions though? Where they had virtually no impact on him or his regime

cyberhog · 14-03-2012 02:58AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Unfortunately the sanctions will only affect the lower strata of Iranian society.

Higher oil prices will also affect the lower strata of Western societies.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

But isn't it all very reminiscent of the Saddam sanctions though? Where they had virtually no impact on him or his regime

Yes you're right sanctions didn't dislodge Saddam they only hurt ordinary Iraqis. The West may be hoping that hurting ordinary Iranians will turn the people against Ahmadinejad but that tactic could easily backfire on the warmongers.

Fariba D, 45-year-old Tehran housewife says: "People in the West always say they have nothing against the Iranian people, but for goodness' sake, this kind of policy only affects us, not the government."

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2012/01/24/eu-sanctions-to-hit-iran-s-people-not-government

"In some sense the brunt of sanctions is really being imposed on young people," said Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, professor of economics at Virginia Tech and an expert on the Iranian economy. "They are bearing a disproportionate cost of these sanctions, and that ruins futures. People are losing hope and not seeing the global economy as something good for them."

That does not bode well for the West's credibility in Iran, Salehi-Isfahani said. If anything, the sanctions could turn the Iranian people inward.

"What's lacking is the moral force behind the sanctions that would convince Iranians that United States is doing the right thing and their government is in the wrong here," Salehi-Isfahani said. "[Those imposing sanctions] are banking on these young people or the middle class blaming their own government for what's going on, and that's a long shot. Much more likely is that these people will suffer."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/285465/20120121/iran-sanctions-will-work-backfire.htm

cyberhog · 14-03-2012 03:25AM

At the beginning of February Obama said:

“We have mobilized the international community in a way that is unprecedented. And they are feeling the pinch, they’re feeling the pressure, but they have not taken the step that they need to, diplomatically, which is to say we will pursue peaceful nuclear power; we will not pursue a nuclear weapon. Until they do, I think Israel rightly is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-orders-new-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/

Well later that month Iran's supreme leader did in fact say his country will not pursue nuclear weapons.

"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/22/irans-ayatollah-khamenei-we-will-never-seek-nuclear-weapons/

Iran took the step Obama wanted and said they will not pursue nuclear weapons so why is Obama still not satisfied? Does the West seriously think that ignoring what Khamenei said and pushing ahead with sanctions is going to go down well with the Iranian people?

JustinDee · 14-03-2012 08:07AM

He said they've got nothing? lol
Well, thats okay then.

RichieC · 14-03-2012 01:08PM

cyberhog wrote: »

Iran took the step Obama wanted and said they will not pursue nuclear weapons so why is Obama still not satisfied? Does the West seriously think that ignoring what Khamenei said and pushing ahead with sanctions is going to go down well with the Iranian people?

Now all they need to do is start selling their oil in Dollars again, abolish their non usury banking and open the sector up to western interests and give up any any dream of ever being a country with reach beyond their borders. simple.

Border-Rat · 14-03-2012 04:05PM

JustinDee wrote: »

He said they've got nothing? lol
Well, thats okay then.

The US Government said Iraq had WMD. That didn't turn out to be ok at all, did it?

RichieC · 14-03-2012 05:21PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

The US Government said Iraq had WMD. That didn't turn out to be ok at all, did it?

Yes but these guys are Iranian and therefore less trustworthy than our friends from the shining light on the western hill.

cyberhog · 15-03-2012 03:03AM

JustinDee wrote: »

He said they've got nothing? lol
Well, thats okay then.

Do you also question the trustworthiness of Obama's own Defense Secretary?

Leon Panetta :"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57354647/face-the-nation-transcript-january-8-2012/

If Obama's own Defense Secretary says Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon then why is Obama "very concerned" about Iran developing nuclear weapons? It seems to me that Obama's concerns are nothing more than irrational fears.

JustinDee · 15-03-2012 08:57AM

Border-Rat wrote: »

The US Government said Iraq had WMD. That didn't turn out to be ok at all, did it?

Try not to assume that everyone with an opinion on the Iranian regime and its nuclear aspirations automatically saw the Iraq invasion as justified.
Thats the problem with anonymous folk debating on the web: subjective and trite pigeon-holing for convenience's sake. Its like dismissing one spokesman or representive's opinion as waffle and treating another's as gospel truth.

Border-Rat · 15-03-2012 01:31PM

We're not talking about your opinion. You are not the US Government, the main purveyors of WMD 2.0. Hence the lack of credibility.

Jaafa · 15-03-2012 03:49PM

Latest report from the IEA says South Korea and India have sharply increased oil purchases from Iran.

Also new today is that SWIFT have cut Iran off from it's financial messaging service due to US pressure. Another move that is sure to fail.

Sunnyisland · 15-03-2012 04:38PM

Here is another report with a bit more perspective.

While India has not asked its refiners to stop purchasing Iranian crude, the government has told processors in the South Asian nation to seek alternate supplies and gradually reduce their dependence on the Persian Gulf state due to increasing pressure from the U.S. in recent weeks, three Indian officials with direct knowledge of the situation said today. India has not significantly cut imports this year because refiners annual crude term deals with Iran typically from april to march they said,The planed reductions will only start when new annual contracts begin next month,The U.S. government may not be aware that India’s biggest buyer of Iranian oil, state-owned Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (MRPL), plans to import less from Iran starting next month, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the matter who declining to be identified because there not authorized to speak to the media China halved its imports from Iran, from 550,000 barrels a day in December to 275,000 barrels a day in January, following a dispute over pricing terms that has now been resolved, the report said.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=south%20korea%20%26%20india source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEIQqQIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2012-03-15%2Fu-s-may-sanction-india-over-level-of-iran-oil-imports.html&ei=dBViT8qdDMiBhQe8laykCA&usg=AFQjCNHFji3jV_1YKKbMD58yL_hHNCOUeQ

JustinDee · 15-03-2012 05:12PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

We're not talking about your opinion. You are not the US Government, the main purveyors of WMD 2.0. Hence the lack of credibility.

This is all opinion as far as you are concerned. I have an opinion as well as you. You are no more qualified to correct anybody here about any of these issues. Your information is based on second-hand information trawled for on the internet.

brimal · 15-03-2012 05:19PM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is all opinion as far as you are concerned. I have an opinion as well as you. You are no more qualified to correct anybody here about any of these issues. Your information is based on second-hand information trawled for on the internet.

This thread is an anti-West love-in. Don't you know debate is not allowed?

Border-Rat · 15-03-2012 05:38PM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is all opinion as far as you are concerned. I have an opinion as well as you. You are no more qualified to correct anybody here about any of these issues. Your information is based on second-hand information trawled for on the internet.

America claims Iran has a clandestine nuclear programme. Did they or did they not claim the same thing about Iraq? A follow up question - were they correct?

Border-Rat · 15-03-2012 05:39PM

brimal wrote: »

This thread is an anti-West love-in. Don't you know debate is not allowed?

Funny that, since the person you quoted is a serial report-button spammer when debate doesn't go his way.

nacho libre · 15-03-2012 05:41PM

JustinDee wrote: »

This is all opinion as far as you are concerned. I have an opinion as well as you. .

Leon Panetta :"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

Would you say he is more likely to have a more informed opinion on the matter than you?

JustinDee · 15-03-2012 07:48PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Leon Panetta :"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

Would you say he is more likely to have a more informed opinion on the matter than you?

That's the selectivity I'm referring to. You choose to believe that because it suits your stance.
Personally if IAEA are satisfied, I'll probably go with that, regardless of findings. And before you say they are, they aren't according to their latest reports.

nacho libre · 15-03-2012 11:37PM

JustinDee wrote: »

That's the selectivity I'm referring to. You choose to believe that because it suits your stance.
Personally if IAEA are satisfied, I'll probably go with that, regardless of findings. And before you say they are, they aren't according to their latest reports.

If anything it's the other away around, as you conveniently choose to not give any credence to what he said and ignored the consensus of 16 US intelligence agencies because it weakens your position.

If the IAEA are politically compromised , Iran will never be able to do enough to satisfy them.
I fear this maybe the case because the IAEA are breaching the npt agreement by introducing additional protocols that Iran under the agreement does not have to agree to.

You'll likely dismiss this as preposterous, but we do know the former head of the IAEA was under intense pressure from American politicians to step aside because his reports weren't deemed critical enough of Iran.

So looking at things in totality, it's more likely you are the one who is guilty of being selective, because the burden of proof falls on those politicians who have made false accusations in the past to prove their case, and so far there is scant evidence to suggest Iran is building a nuke.

JustinDee · 16-03-2012 05:07AM

Tilted.
I'm not being subjective. I don't have an agenda on the matter such as anti-west, anti-Islam or anti-US etc. Whatever happens, happens. Sitting at a keyboard, anonymously pontificating one's unqualified line to others of differing opinion achieves zilch.

And context in quoting is everything. The cabinet minister you refer to had plenty more to write about regarding Iranian regime's nuclear aspirations.

Compare and contrast with ...
- "Dear Leader, does Iran seek to produce nuclear weapons?"
- "No"
- "Great. Thanks. That's good enough for us"

Jonny7 · 16-03-2012 06:35PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

America claims Iran has a clandestine nuclear programme.

Not directly, however they are pushing that Iran is untrustworthy and must be monitored, watched and pressured (to do with loss of trust e.g. 2003, when evidence showed Iran was "tinkering" with weaponisation and development, also the continuing cat and mouse game with IAEA, rhetoric, etc)

This constant heightened state of tension between Iran and the US/UN/EU3 also keeps conservatives comfortably in power in Iran.

If Iran were to weaponise covertly, or go into some kind of crash course, then there would almost inevitably be war with Israel - a situation that everyone* wants to avoid, as the economic consequences alone would be terrible.

*ignoring the usual military hardliners on all sides

nacho libre · 16-03-2012 11:40PM

JustinDee wrote: »

Tilted.
I'm not being subjective. I don't have an agenda on the matter such as anti-west, anti-Islam or anti-US etc. Whatever happens, happens. Sitting at a keyboard, anonymously pontificating one's unqualified line to others of differing opinion achieves zilch.

And context in quoting is everything. The cabinet minister you refer to had plenty more to write about regarding Iranian regime's nuclear aspirations.

Compare and contrast with ...
- "Dear Leader, does Iran seek to produce nuclear weapons?"
- "No"
- "Great. Thanks. That's good enough for us"

I don't expect you to be swayed by an "unqualified line". Although it seem informed opinion doesn't really matter to you either.

If you aren't being subjective/have no allegiance to any side, why are you attempting to suggest what Panetta said is being taken out of context. He was asked a question and gave a direct answer. I bet if he had said Iran was building a nuke, you wouldn't be keen to suggest the conversation was taken out of context.

I suppose the consensus opinion of the 16 intelligence agencies is being taken out of context too? If you are objective on the matter you should at least have major doubts about the claims being made by Israeli politicians in light of all this - especially since many of these are the very people who have been crying wolf for the last 20 odd years about how Iran has been close to building a nuke at various times.

October 1992: "Warning the international community that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999, Shimon Peres told France 3 television that 'Iran is the greatest threat [to peace] and greatest problem in the Middle East...because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militantism.'"

Source: Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in an interview with French TV

November 1992: "But the Israelis caution that a bigger threat to Middle East serenity - not to mention their own country’s security - lies in Teheran, whose regime they say is sure to become a nuclear power in a few years unless stopped."

Source: New York Times

January 1995: "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say."

Source: New York Times

1995: "The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons."

Source: Benjamin Netanyahu, in his book Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network.

February 1996: "On February 15, 1996, Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak told members of the UN Security Council that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons within eight years."

Source: Barak comments reported in Le Monde

April 1996: "I believe that in four years they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons," [Israeli Prime Minister Shimo]] Peres told ABC television during an interview.

Source: Agence France Presse

November 1999: "Unless the United States pressures Russia to end its military assistance to Iran, the Islamic republic will possess a nuclear capability within five years, a senior Israeli military official said Sunday."

Source: Associated Press

July 2001: "I mentioned to our friends, the Turkish leadership, that we are more than worried about the very rapid development taking place regarding nuclear weapons," [Minister of Defense] Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told reporters. 'As far as we know by the year 2005 they [Iran] will, they might, be ready."

Source: Associated Press

August 2003: "Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday."

Source: Jerusalem Post

February 2009: "Netanyahu said he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapons capability, but that 'our experts' say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations."

cyberhog · 23-03-2012 07:10AM

The IMF has warned that Obama's harebrained sanctions could have "serious consequences" for the global recovery.

Lagarde said that crude prices could soar by between 20 to 30 per cent, if the West imposes an embargo on Iranian exports over concerns about its nuclear program.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/03/20/oil-prices-warnings.html

JustinDee · 23-03-2012 07:46AM

nacho libre wrote: »

I don't expect you to be swayed by an "unqualified line". Although it seem informed opinion doesn't really matter to you either.

If you aren't being subjective/have no allegiance to any side, why are you attempting to suggest what Panetta said is being taken out of context. He was asked a question and gave a direct answer. I bet if he had said Iran was building a nuke, you wouldn't be keen to suggest the conversation was taken out of context.

I suppose the consensus opinion of the 16 intelligence agencies is being taken out of context too? If you are objective on the matter you should at least have major doubts about the claims being made by Israeli politicians in light of all this - especially since many of these are the very people who have been crying wolf for the last 20 odd years about how Iran has been close to building a nuke at various times.

October 1992: "Warning the international community that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999, Shimon Peres told France 3 television that 'Iran is the greatest threat [to peace] and greatest problem in the Middle East...because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militantism.'"

Source: Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in an interview with French TV

November 1992: "But the Israelis caution that a bigger threat to Middle East serenity - not to mention their own country’s security - lies in Teheran, whose regime they say is sure to become a nuclear power in a few years unless stopped."

Source: New York Times

January 1995: "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say."

Source: New York Times

1995: "The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons."

Source: Benjamin Netanyahu, in his book Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network.

February 1996: "On February 15, 1996, Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak told members of the UN Security Council that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons within eight years."

Source: Barak comments reported in Le Monde

April 1996: "I believe that in four years they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons," [Israeli Prime Minister Shimo]] Peres told ABC television during an interview.

Source: Agence France Presse

November 1999: "Unless the United States pressures Russia to end its military assistance to Iran, the Islamic republic will possess a nuclear capability within five years, a senior Israeli military official said Sunday."

Source: Associated Press

July 2001: "I mentioned to our friends, the Turkish leadership, that we are more than worried about the very rapid development taking place regarding nuclear weapons," [Minister of Defense] Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told reporters. 'As far as we know by the year 2005 they [Iran] will, they might, be ready."

Source: Associated Press

August 2003: "Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday."

Source: Jerusalem Post

February 2009: "Netanyahu said he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapons capability, but that 'our experts' say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations."

So, nothing up-to-date then?
What next? John Lennon marries Cynthia?

geeman · 23-03-2012 07:53AM

JustinDee wrote:

So, nothing up-to-date then?

You mean Israeli politicians claiming Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb?

lol ...

JustinDee · 23-03-2012 08:32AM

geeman wrote: »

You mean Israeli politicians claiming Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb?

lol ...

Thats for the IAEA to decide. When satisfied, then expect a laugh along with you. Until then though . . .

cyberhog · 24-03-2012 07:39AM

JustinDee wrote: »

Thats for the IAEA to decide. When satisfied, then expect a laugh along with you. Until then though . . .

It looks like the IAEA has got some credibility issues.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog at the heart of the growing Iranian crisis, has been accused by several former senior officials of pro-western bias, over-reliance on unverified intelligence and of sidelining sceptics.

...

Robert Kelley, a former US weapons scientists who ran the IAEA action team on Iraq at the time of the US-led invasion, said there were worrying parallels between the west's mistakes over Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction then and the IAEA's assessment of Iran now.

"Amano is falling into the Cheney trap. What we learned back in 2002 and 2003, when we were in the runup to the war, was that peer review was very important, and that the analysis should not be left to a small group of people," Kelley said.

"So what have we learned since then? Absolutely nothing. Just like [former US vice-president] Dick Cheney, Amano is relying on a very small group of people and those opinions are not being checked."

Other former officials have also raised concern that the current IAEA is becoming an echo chamber, focused on suspicions over Iran's programme, without the vigorous debate that characterised the era of Amano's predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei.

...

Hans Blix, a former IAEA director general, also raised concerns over the agency's credibility. "There is a distinction between information and evidence, and if you are a responsible agency you have to make sure that you ask questions and do not base conclusions on information that has not been verified," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/22/nuclear-watchdog-iran-iaea

So the IAEA are using unverified intelligence to help the Western war mongers trick the public into thinking Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Now we know why JustinDee thinks so highly of the IAEA.

Top oil trader says Iran not feeling pain from sanctions

Comments