Submit your comments on this article |
Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
Iran: Macho Talk and Reality |
2006-02-04 |
Amir Taheri Until just a week ago estate agents in Tehran were marketing a housing project due to be launched at the end of the year by an Irano-Finnish company. Now, however, agents contacted over the telephone say the project has been “indefinitely postponed”. The reason? “Well, you know where the country is headed,” says one Tehran real estate dealer. Where the country is headed, of course, is toward a possible clash with the United Nations over its alleged plans to build nuclear weapons. The clash could lead to economic and other sanctions or, if the worst comes to worst, military conflict. The Tehran leadership under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, appears confident that it can take on the UN and win. • It has completed “emergency plans to face aggression” and is busy building a network of logistical support facilities in the western and southern provinces.“The time when Muslim leaders kowtowed to powerful infidel rulers is over,” Ahmadinejad said during a meting with visiting Indonesian Parliament Speaker Agung Laksono in Tehran Tuesday. “We will pursue out goals regardless of (any) threats.” Apart from the defensive measures already taken, Tehran has also issued a number of threats, some vague, some not. One vague threat has come from Defense Minister Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar who told a press conference in Tehran last week that Iran would “retaliate with double force” against the US and its allies in the region, presumably with missiles. Vague threats have also been made about unleashing terrorist groups against the US and its allies in the Middle East and Europe. Tehran, however, had made two specific threats. One was to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut production so as to raise prices and “create economic pressure on potential aggressors.” That has not happened. In its ministerial meeting in Vienna last week OPEC decided to maintain the present production levels and work to bring prices down to $28 a barrel (as opposed to the current average of $50). This was a signal that OPEC did not wish to encourage Iran. The second specific threat made by Tehran was the launching of a new “expanded intifada” led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel. But with Hamas now trying to form the Palestinian government it is unlikely that it would wish to become involved in an Iranian strategy. As for Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian group closest to Tehran, it is not strong enough to take both Israel and Hamas, simply to please the Iranians. The truth is that things are not going as well for the Islamic Republic as President Ahmadinejad claims. Here are some facts that he might want to consider: • Over the past six months an estimated $300 billion, mostly belonging to small or medium investors, has been transferred from Iran to foreign banks, especially in the Gulf states. (The chief justice of the Islamic Republic Mahmoud Shahroudi puts the figure at $700 billion).The perception in Tehran is that the new administration is deliberately provoking an unnecessary conflict for ideological reasons by restarting a program to process uranium at a plant in Isfahan. Iran does not have any nuclear power station, and thus does not need any enriched uranium for at least another two years. There could be even more bad news for President Ahmadinejad even if the UN does not impose any sanctions immediately. The economic slowdown provoked by a flight of capital and the postponement of many projects has already destroyed thousands of jobs and job opportunities. It has also undermined the national currency that has lost 17 percent of its value against a basket of hard currencies since September. The Ahmadinejad administration has tried to cope by increased spending, including a depletion of the “Reserves Fund” set up by the previous government. The result is a new boost to inflationary tendencies that have been the bane of Iran’s economy since the 1970s. And that would hurt the masses of the poor most, the constituency that helped Ahmadinejad win the presidency. Somewhere along the road, the very nuclear program over which the crisis is brewing could be in jeopardy. Iran’s imports of raw uranium, mostly from Gabon and Niger, through France, could be stopped by the UN. Iran’s own uranium deposits, believed to be among the largest in the world, would not be brought to production level anytime soon without the help of Western companies. Iran’s nuclear program could also face difficulties from another direction. Even without specific UN sanctions, the seven-nation group of exporters of nuclear technology and equipment could decide to stop Iran from buying what it needs from them. And that could slow down the Iranian program, whether civilian or military, for years if not decades. President Ahmadinejad’s macho talk may well sound good for propaganda purposes. But he sure needs a fallback position that he does not seem to have. The way he is going now may give the last laugh to the persons he defeated in last June’s election. |
Posted by:Fred |
#10 I realize this article comes from the Arab News, out of Saudi Arabia, but this puzzles me: Iran does not have any nuclear power station, and thus does not need any enriched uranium for at least another two years. What do the Saudis think will happen two years from now? |
Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-04 22:42 |
#9 Bullets work fine. |
Posted by: lotp 2006-02-04 16:08 |
#8 and all streetlights are being removed as well as limited selling of rope |
Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-04 16:07 |
#7 Iran: Macho Talk • Some $3 billion has been added to the regular defense budget in the form of a “supplement for emergency • The “Supreme Guide” has also created a “High Council of Import of “sensitive |
Posted by: RD 2006-02-04 10:41 |
#6 I got yer Macho Talk right here, Mahmoud: Meet you in the bathhouse at the usual time... |
Posted by: The Village People 2006-02-04 10:17 |
#5 US oil shale conversion requires huge amounts of water. The oil shale is in the driest part of the country. Also, oil shale extraction makes a big mess - environmentalists will certainly slow down any massive expansion. Fear of another round of price drops will also slow down massive capital investment (every previous shortage and price escalation has ended with new supplies and a price collapse - but eventually that will not be true, because the Earth is finite.) |
Posted by: Glenmore 2006-02-04 09:19 |
#4 Iran�s imports of raw uranium, mostly from Gabon and Niger, through France Sounds like time for Mr. Valerie Plame to make another trip. And I like the through France touch. Perhaps he can stop by to see his chum Jacques. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-04 09:16 |
#3 That is why we need an oil import fee to maintain the cost of imported oil at an inflation adjusted $50 per barrel so that these investments will pay off. |
Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-04 09:12 |
#2 However, bringing oil prices down to $28 a barrel is a pipe dream. Actually, it's not. I predict oil prices below $20/bb in the next 5 years after a huge surge in production from non-conventional sources. The US oilshales alone will supply the entire world with oil for more than a hundred years. And this ignores coal and nuclear energy, which in the big picture are fungible. That is, any increase in one energy source reduces demand for another. |
Posted by: phil_b 2006-02-04 08:44 |
#1 I feel a little more hopeful over this news, pressure on the Iranian terror regime seems to be causing resources to rapidly drain away. A few "accidents" in Iranian petroleum refineries and their electrical power stations would really put the screws to them. However, bringing oil prices down to $28 a barrel is a pipe dream. |
Posted by: Whutch Threth6418 2006-02-04 03:39 |