Starving Iran

[countezero]

Morris is something of a hack, but here he proposes something I find interesting. Too bad the Republicans probably won't sign on to it...

STARVING THE MULLAHS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on June 25, 2007.

The conventional wisdom says that we have two choices in confronting and containing Iranian nuclear ambitions - United Nations sanctions and diplomacy, or a military strike to knock out key nuclear sites. But neither option is a good one. U.N. sanctions are relatively tame and don't go to the heart of how to cripple the Iranian theocracy. A military strike, meanwhile, would solve the regime's major problem: how to gin up popular support and stay in power. Any attack risks causing nationalism in Iran to soar, rallying the public around a now-unpopular government.

But there is a way to strike hard at Iran and encourage a change in regime or at least in policies: We can stop investing in companies that invest in Iran. Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Pentagon official, and his group disinvestterror.org list 485 companies that do business in Iran.

Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East negotiator, told me recently that he felt that disinvestment "could be important in bringing about a change in Iranian policy" on nuclear weapons.

Of course it could: The Tehran regime gets 85 percent of its revenues from the energy sector and needs the cash to pacify the population. With high unemployment and low job growth, the government hangs on by the skin of its teeth by subsidizing prices - gasoline costs 30 cents a gallon in Teheran.

But oil exports have dropped year after year as domestic demand has grown 10 percent annually. Despite rising oil and gas prices, energy revenues to the government have dropped from $55 billion in 2006 to an estimated $44 billion this year.

Current estimates are that Iran's oil exports will drop in half by 2011, and hit zero three years later. The regime desperately needs new investment to prop up its oil production.

It's up to the public - and to our leaders - to see that Western companies don't provide that investment.

Already this month, California, Ohio and Florida have passed bills requiring their state pension funds to cut off any investment in these companies. State Sen. Jeff Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester) has proposed similar legislation in New York. He says that $20 billion of our state pension-fund assets are now invested in companies that invest in terror sponsoring nations. (The list includes most major oil companies and international banks.)

But state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli doesn't have to wait for the Legislature to act. He should withdraw all investments by New York's state-employee-pension fund (the No. 2 in America) from companies that do business of any sort with Iran, Syria, Sudan or North Korea.

American companies are already banned from investments in Iran - but not so, European ones. Thanks to former Sen. Al D'Amato, a 1996 law imposes sanctions on foreign companies that invest in either Libya or Iran - but President Bush, like Bill Clinton, has consistently exercised the law's national-security loophole to waive it.

But the Europeans can't stop us from selling off the stock of companies like Shell, Repsol or Total that do business with Iran. The disinvestment drive is only a few months old, but it has already pushed Repsol, a Spanish company, and Shell, a Dutch firm, to reconsider their Iranian investments.

It's no sure thing - but disinvestment is a safe way to weaken the Iranian regime, and one we don't need approval from the United Nations - or Washington - to execute.

[original]

Originally posted by countezero
But oil exports have dropped year after year as domestic demand has grown 10 percent annually. Despite rising oil and gas prices, energy revenues to the government have dropped from $55 billion in 2006 to an estimated $44 billion this year.

Current estimates are that Iran's oil exports will drop in half by 2011, and hit zero three years later. The regime desperately needs new investment to prop up its oil production.

It's up to the public - and to our leaders - to see that Western companies don't provide that investment.

They may be withdrawing their goods from Western companies to starve us. I've read that Iran is on business terms with Russia, Venezuela, China... who knows for sure, but they don't need us to protect their economy.

Also, we don't need the U.N. to resolve our differences. Why go through a process? We could just talk. Or brandish our weapons. Or use them.

[S.A.M.]

Iran has already been under sanctions since 1979.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/108E16.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1219357.stm

500,000 children died under sanctions in Iraq. Changed anything much over there?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

Anyway, all the Iranians have to do is sell their oil only in euros, along with Venezuela and the US is f*cked. And this strategy will give them the perfect excuse to do it.

[GeoffP]

I disagree strongly with the notion of sanctions. They never remove ideologues, and I have little doubt that the religious authorities would rather see the people of Iran starve than back down from anything.

[S.A.M.]

Smart Americans are disinvesting from dollars. The irony is astounding.

[superstring01]

Smart Americans are disinvesting from dollars. The irony is astounding.

The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?

~String

[S.A.M.]

The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?

~String

Cos they're smart?

http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jun/11dollar.htm

On March 28, 2006, the Asian Development Bank is reported to have issued a memo, advising members to be ready for a collapse of the US dollar.

Since end March 2006, the US Federal Reserve has stopped publishing the quantum of broad money (that is the aggregate of US dollars circulating in the entire world -- technically called 'M3') in the US economy. This is the worst possible signal that the US Federal Reserve could have sent to the world.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...rs&btnG=Search

[original]

Originally posted by superstring99
The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?

I guess you could say that it is intentionally weak, considering the direction our economy has progressed. Devastating deficit of outstanding credit that the US dollar is holding like Atlas, and as the value drops the circumstances get heavier. My guess is that Americans would disinvest from the dollar because they want to convert it into the currency of rising markets... or precious metals, materials, and fuels.

[S.A.M.]

Most Americans are shifting to the euro; Gates and Buffet have been doing it since 2001.

http://alternativeperspective.blogsp...et-george.html

[superstring01]

The article you posted was written over two years ago... sagacious investors regularly shift their investments between curriencies. Again, if you knew a thing about the way Soros did business (as in, switching to the Thai Baht, then liquidating it which pompted the Thai recession in the early 90's... then did the same thing to the Russian Ruble a year later), you'd just how timely an article like that has to be to be relevent.

This is not a sign of the fall of the USA... just a sign that wise investors keep their money moving.

~String

[S.A.M.]

The article you posted was written over two years ago... sagacious investors regularly shift their investments between curriencies. Again, if you knew a thing about the way Soros did business (as in, switching to the Thai Baht, then liquidating it which pompted the Thai recession in the early 90's... then did the same thing to the Russian Ruble a year later), you'd just how timely an article like that has to be to be relevent.

This is not a sign of the fall of the USA... just a sign that wise investors keep their money moving.

~String

If you say so.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.p...70625033206256

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2148962.cms

[oreodont]

The USA is not weaker in absolute terms but in relative terms to other economies than it was a decade ago. It's actually a positive for the American economy that it is not so dependent on itself in 2007. This makes future periods of inflation, depression, etc. less dramatic. The booming upstart economies of China, India, Brazil, indonesia, etc, are huge new markets for American trade.

The USA is still the world's largest exporter. 8 times the per capita exports of the Chinese. A lot of this is in high tech 'stuff' such as airplanes, communications, software systems, military goods and agriculture. what's not so good for American foreign policy is that the USA is an ever shrinking piece of the global economic pie...the USA isn't poorer but the pie keeps getting bigger. The days of American imperialism are still around but less of a hammer. China, Pakistan, India, Russia an so on might give lipservice to American imperialism on certain issues (such as sanctions against Iran) but the Americans haven't much clout in enforcement. Chavez has already declared he will show solidarity with the Iranians in turning off the taps if necesary but who knows? China certainly isn't going to hurt its own economy because the Americans havea hissy fit with Iran. Iran is nowhere near the U.S. border and the attitude of many in the world is 'why the f...k is the USA sticking its nose in Iran?'. The Israeli card is the reason but rightly or wrongly that won't win much support.

[Baron Max]

Anyway, all the Iranians have to do is sell their oil only in euros, along with Venezuela and the US is f*cked.

Even after I asked you to check out how international currency rates are set, you still don't know how currency rates are set, do you, Sam? ...LOL!

Sam, really, check out the method of how international currency is set/determined, then you won't look like such a fool, okay?

Baron Max

[S.A.M.]

Even after I asked you to check out how international currency rates are set, you still don't know how currency rates are set, do you, Sam? ...LOL!

Sam, really, check out the method of how international currency is set/determined, then you won't look like such a fool, okay?

Baron Max

Why don't you ejukate me Baron?

[superstring01]

If you say so.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.p...70625033206256

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2148962.cms

The USA is not weaker in absolute terms but in relative terms to other economies than it was a decade ago. It's actually a positive for the American economy that it is not so dependent on itself in 2007. This makes future periods of inflation, depression, etc. less dramatic. The booming upstart economies of China, India, Brazil, indonesia, etc, are huge new markets for American trade.

The USA is still the world's largest exporter. 8 times the per capita exports of the Chinese. A lot of this is in high tech 'stuff' such as airplanes, communications, software systems, military goods and agriculture. what's not so good for American foreign policy is that the USA is an ever shrinking piece of the global economic pie...the USA isn't poorer but the pie keeps getting bigger. The days of American imperialism are still around but less of a hammer. China, Pakistan, India, Russia an so on might give lipservice to American imperialism on certain issues (such as sanctions against Iran) but the Americans haven't much clout in enforcement. Chavez has already declared he will show solidarity with the Iranians in turning off the taps if necesary but who knows? China certainly isn't going to hurt its own economy because the Americans havea hissy fit with Iran. Iran is nowhere near the U.S. border and the attitude of many in the world is 'why the f...k is the USA sticking its nose in Iran?'. The Israeli card is the reason but rightly or wrongly that won't win much support.

Thank you... which is a point that S.A.M. so greatly misses. It's not so much that the USA is weaker "gram-per-gram" is just that there are so many other powerful economies and currencies in which a nation can and SHOULD invest... most notably a resurgent Yen and the new and mighty Euro. Good. Powerful economies outside the USA are great for the big economy inside the USA.

Something S.A.M. so painfully misses.

~String

[S.A.M.]

Thank you... which is a point that S.A.M. so greatly misses. It's not so much that the USA is weaker "gram-per-gram" is just that there are so many other powerful economies and currencies in which a nation can and SHOULD invest... most notably a resurgent Yen and the new and mighty Euro. Good. Powerful economies outside the USA are great for the big economy inside the USA.

Something S.A.M. so painfully misses.

~String

I'm glad you see it that way.

[desi]

If we try to starve the Mullahs they'll blame it on the US and lots of people will enlist in their army to fight so their families won't starve.

[Read-Only]

If we try to starve the Mullahs they'll blame it on the US and lots of people will enlist in their army to fight so their families won't starve.

Starved (dead) soldiers don't make much of an army.

[countezero]

500,000 children died under sanctions in Iraq. Changed anything much over there?

Apparently so. The sanctions kept Saddam from rebuilding his military and building those pesky weapons of mass destruction we didn't find, or have you forgot that already? Isn't it one of your talking points...

[iceaura]

Halliburton does business in Iran - they'd be happy to pick up anything Shell leaves on the table. Americans are going to boycott Halliburton? Us lefties have been recommending that for years now.

Boycotting an oil exporter like Iran is not a simple thing to do. And the sanctions have already done most of a boycott's actual potential damage.

The Iraqi sanctions were undermined and about to collapse - as Iran's are, apparently - with growing pressure from China, etc. A boycott will fare no better. You going to stop buying gas for your car, to starve Iranian children?