According to a new Study by Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Iran could run out of oil to export in eight years without significant investment in infrastructure.
The report, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, suggests that Iran's nuclear programme could be a "genuine" opportunity for investors as oil production has failed to bridge oil field losses and domestic demand growth.
Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University in Maryland said: "I'm not saying that Iran will have no oil in eight years. I'm saying that they will be using all of it for themselves."
The data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said Tehran could become "politically vulnerable" from the decline in exports as these account for about 70 per cent of government revenue.
The U.S. case against Iran is based on Iran's deceptions regarding nuclear weapons development. This case is buttressed by assertions that a state so petroleum-rich cannot need nuclear power to preserve exports, as Iran claims. The U.S. infers, therefore, that Iran's entire nuclear technology program must pertain to weapons development.
However, some industry analysts project an Irani oil export decline [e.g., Clark JR (2005) Oil Gas J 103(18):34-39]. If such a decline is occurring, Iran's claim to need nuclear power could be genuine. Because Iran's government relies on monopoly proceeds from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically vulnerable if exports decline.
In the study the researchers survey the political economy of Irani petroleum for evidence of this decline. They define Iran's export decline rate (edr) as its summed rates of depletion and domestic demand growth, which they find equals 10-12%.
To read the full report in PDF go @ PNAS
20 Dec 2006
Think counter-intuitively about Iran, than simply upping the rhetoric
RI
In response to today's Tony Blair new round of attacks against Iran, Foreign Policy Centre in England in a statement suggested to the British PM to "think counter-intuitively about Iran, rather than simply upping the rhetoric."
The statement reads, "The Iranians want to engage with the West on a wide range of issues, including regional peace and security. The proposal by Tehran of a regional security organisation should be taken seriously by the US and the EU."
Despite the fact that Iran being one of the exceptions in the Middle East in terms of having a more advanced democratic system, Mr Blair today accused Tehran of being the most undemocratic nation in the Middle East and suggested, "We have to wake up. These forces of extremism based on a warped and wrong-headed interpretation of Islam aren't fighting a conventional war, but they are fighting one against us."
Blair, who is due to step down as prime minister next year, said: "And 'us' is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies. 'Us' is all those who believe in tolerance, respect for others and liberty."
He went on saying, "We must mobilise our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it to defeat the extremists."
As one of the critics to Blair's speech said, looking at the UK and US alliances in the region one can figure out that what kind of regimes Mr Blair is referring to as the moderate ones.
ALEX BIGHAM, Iran Analyst of the Foreign Policy Centre today said: "Iran does have legitimate security concerns, when they are surrounded regionally by nuclear powers and US troops. Persuading the Iranians not to start a regional nuclear arms race and to stop meddling in Iraq and Lebanon can only be achieved if we offer them major incentives in return - the status of a leading role in regional security could unlock the current crisis."
The centre which has close link to Tony Blair's wing in the ruling Labour party added, "Blair's speech today had the right mood music - he is correct to focus on Iran as a problem affecting the wider Middle East. However, neither the US and UK seem to be able to answer the fundamental question - How do you deal with a problem like Iran?"
The centre added, "Blair's alliance of moderation should not be exclusively focused on the moderate Gulf states, or he risks pitting Sunni government against Iran's Shi'a theocracy. With the reformist forces gaining support after their election victories over the weekend, the 'alliance of moderation' must extend to moderates in Iran. There will only be support for long term change in Iran if there is a positive offer on the table, more than the rather piecemeal offer of aircraft spare parts in return for Iran ending its nuclear ambitions."
to see Blair's speech go @ BBC
In response to today's Tony Blair new round of attacks against Iran, Foreign Policy Centre in England in a statement suggested to the British PM to "think counter-intuitively about Iran, rather than simply upping the rhetoric."
The statement reads, "The Iranians want to engage with the West on a wide range of issues, including regional peace and security. The proposal by Tehran of a regional security organisation should be taken seriously by the US and the EU."
Despite the fact that Iran being one of the exceptions in the Middle East in terms of having a more advanced democratic system, Mr Blair today accused Tehran of being the most undemocratic nation in the Middle East and suggested, "We have to wake up. These forces of extremism based on a warped and wrong-headed interpretation of Islam aren't fighting a conventional war, but they are fighting one against us."
Blair, who is due to step down as prime minister next year, said: "And 'us' is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies. 'Us' is all those who believe in tolerance, respect for others and liberty."
He went on saying, "We must mobilise our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it to defeat the extremists."
As one of the critics to Blair's speech said, looking at the UK and US alliances in the region one can figure out that what kind of regimes Mr Blair is referring to as the moderate ones.
ALEX BIGHAM, Iran Analyst of the Foreign Policy Centre today said: "Iran does have legitimate security concerns, when they are surrounded regionally by nuclear powers and US troops. Persuading the Iranians not to start a regional nuclear arms race and to stop meddling in Iraq and Lebanon can only be achieved if we offer them major incentives in return - the status of a leading role in regional security could unlock the current crisis."
The centre which has close link to Tony Blair's wing in the ruling Labour party added, "Blair's speech today had the right mood music - he is correct to focus on Iran as a problem affecting the wider Middle East. However, neither the US and UK seem to be able to answer the fundamental question - How do you deal with a problem like Iran?"
The centre added, "Blair's alliance of moderation should not be exclusively focused on the moderate Gulf states, or he risks pitting Sunni government against Iran's Shi'a theocracy. With the reformist forces gaining support after their election victories over the weekend, the 'alliance of moderation' must extend to moderates in Iran. There will only be support for long term change in Iran if there is a positive offer on the table, more than the rather piecemeal offer of aircraft spare parts in return for Iran ending its nuclear ambitions."
to see Blair's speech go @ BBC
18 Dec 2006
Embarrassing document revealed Blair's lies on Iraq war
RI
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously classified evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed by the publication of the document on the UK parliament Commons foreign affairs committee website, as the evidence presented by 40 year old Mr Ross, he, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did British government assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, who at the time was a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained."
Ross was a member of the FCO from 1989 to 2004, when he resigned after giving evidence to the Butler review. As a member of the so-called "fast stream" of the Diplomatic Service, he served, as head of the Middle East Peace Process section (1995-97), speechwriter to the Foreign Secretary (1997-98), and First Secretary (Political) at the UK Mission to the UN, New York, where he was responsible for the Middle East, and in particular Iraq (1998-2002). He served briefly in Afghanistan after the US/UK invasion and was seconded to the UN mission in Kosovo in 2003-04. By the time he resigned, he had joined the Senior Management Structure of the FCO.
Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.
During the Commons Foreign Relations Committee session on 8 November 2006 the communications between the chair of the committee (a labour MP) and Mr Ross is interesting in that it is clear that the chairman is not happy of the revelations and was encouraging Ross to not publish his testimony to Lord Butler.
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously classified evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed by the publication of the document on the UK parliament Commons foreign affairs committee website, as the evidence presented by 40 year old Mr Ross, he, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did British government assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, who at the time was a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained."
Ross was a member of the FCO from 1989 to 2004, when he resigned after giving evidence to the Butler review. As a member of the so-called "fast stream" of the Diplomatic Service, he served, as head of the Middle East Peace Process section (1995-97), speechwriter to the Foreign Secretary (1997-98), and First Secretary (Political) at the UK Mission to the UN, New York, where he was responsible for the Middle East, and in particular Iraq (1998-2002). He served briefly in Afghanistan after the US/UK invasion and was seconded to the UN mission in Kosovo in 2003-04. By the time he resigned, he had joined the Senior Management Structure of the FCO.
Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.
During the Commons Foreign Relations Committee session on 8 November 2006 the communications between the chair of the committee (a labour MP) and Mr Ross is interesting in that it is clear that the chairman is not happy of the revelations and was encouraging Ross to not publish his testimony to Lord Butler.
Chairman: Mr Ross, Black Rod is now approaching to end the proceedings, and that might be a good point at which to conclude our discussions. I say personally that I think that you should take advice before you hand over anything that might get you into problems, despite Mr Mackinlay's protestations.
Andrew Mackinlay: As long as it is on the record
Chairman: Yes, it is on the record.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am surprised. As Chairman, you should be coaxing and encouraging witnesses to give full disclosure, and I hoped that you would do that in discussions with the Clerk.
Chairman: I am trying to ensure that witnesses do not make a decision on the spur of the moment that might have wider consequences without thinking through those consequences.
Andrew Mackinlay: I absolutely agree. It has to stand up in Parliament.
Chairman: It is up to Mr Ross what he chooses to do, but I think that he should give it considered thought rather than give way to being pressured. It is his decision, but I am just saying that as we conclude the proceedings today.
Mr Ross: Mr Chairman, I have given it years of thought. This has been on my conscience for a very long time, and I was waiting for an opportunity under privilege to share my evidence to the Butler inquiry. I would be happy to share it at this point with the Committee.
Chairman: That is fine. That is your decision. Thank you, Mr Ross.
15 Dec 2006
British artists revive the call for Israel Cultural boycott
RI
Following the statement issued by Ken Lochthe on August 2006 for cultural boycotting of Israel a group of acclaimed British artists in a letter published in the Guardian on Friday 15 December called on British writers and artists to undertake a "cultural boycott" of Israel.
Loch, the the British director and winner of year 2006 Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, an artist who is known for his politically and socially engaged films, has declared in a personal statement his support of "the call by Palestinian film-makers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urges others to join their campaign".
In his statement he said:
"I support the call by Palestinian film-makers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urge others to join their campaign.
Palestinians are driven to call for this boycott after forty years of the occupation of their land, destruction of their homes and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians.
They have no immediate hope that this oppression will end.
As British citizens we have to acknowledge our own responsibility. We must condemn the British and US governments for supporting and arming Israel. We must also oppose the terrorist activities of the British and US governments in pursuing their illegal wars and occupations.
However, it is impossible to ignore the appeals of Palestinian comrades. Consequently, I would decline any invitation to the Haifa Film Festival or other such occasions."
The celebrated novelist, critic and artist John Berger on his letter to the Guardian co-signed by, among the 95 signatories, the artist Cornelia Parker, the musician Brian Eno, and writers Arundhati Roy and Ahdaf Soueif, Berger calls for support for the boycott.
He said of the boycott: "Of course its effects will not be gigantic but it is a way of not staying silent. It is a very personal call ... a way of encouraging the very courageous Israelis who oppose their government and an encouragement to Palestinians to somehow go on surviving." ...
to see the letter go @The Guardian
to see the Ken Loch statement go@ the Electronic
Washington steers up war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq
Gareth Porter in his latest analysis indicated that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated with Sunni armed groups for several weeks earlier this year on an agreement that would have supported Sunni forces in attacking pro-Iranian Shiite militias, according to accounts given by commanders of armed Sunni resistance organisations.
The new accounts make it clear for the first time that the main objective of the talks was to explore possible U.S. support for building a Sunni military force directed primarily against Shiites in Iraq.
In the talks, the Sunnis assured the ambassador that the Sunni insurgents had sufficient manpower and knowledge to deal successfully with the problem of Shiite militias in Baghdad, which Khalilzad had begun to recognise as a serious policy problem for the Bush administration. "If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days," one insurgent leader was quoted as saying.
The negotiations between Khalilzad and Sunni insurgents were said by the Sunni leaders to have been brokered by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, at Khalilzad's request. Allawi apparently convinced Sunni resistance leaders that they could find common ground with the United States over Iranian influence in the country, which was exercised through Shiite political parties and militias. ...
Continued@IPS
The new accounts make it clear for the first time that the main objective of the talks was to explore possible U.S. support for building a Sunni military force directed primarily against Shiites in Iraq.
In the talks, the Sunnis assured the ambassador that the Sunni insurgents had sufficient manpower and knowledge to deal successfully with the problem of Shiite militias in Baghdad, which Khalilzad had begun to recognise as a serious policy problem for the Bush administration. "If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days," one insurgent leader was quoted as saying.
The negotiations between Khalilzad and Sunni insurgents were said by the Sunni leaders to have been brokered by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, at Khalilzad's request. Allawi apparently convinced Sunni resistance leaders that they could find common ground with the United States over Iranian influence in the country, which was exercised through Shiite political parties and militias. ...
Continued@IPS
8 Dec 2006
Ellsberg: prevent Iran attack by leaking Pentagon papers
RI
Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked secret Pentagon documents during the Vietnam war called on current Washington insiders to release any classified documents that could sway public opinion against an attack against Iran.
In a press conference on wednesday 6 of December in Stockholm, as reported by Associated Press, Ellsberg, who is one of four recipients of this year's Right Livelihood Award - often dubbed the "Alternative Nobels" - also urged U.S. allies to threaten to withdraw from the NATO alliance if nuclear weapons are used against Iran.
He warned that he believed the U.S. would attack Iran before 2008 and urged Washington insiders to make new disclosures to prevent a new war.
Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to how much they had been deceived by their own government about the war.
"It is more likely than not, in the next two years, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will direct an attack on Iran," Ellsberg said at the news conference for the Right Livelihood laureates. "Such an attack ... might escalate too, to the use of nuclear weapons against underground installations in Iran, with incalculable consequences."
But, the former U.S. State Department official added: "Of the various disastrous policies of their administration, this one is the most susceptible to being changed and averted by public pressure."
"Don't do what I did, don't wait until the war has started before you tell the truth with documents," said Ellsberg.
End/..
a good link to a video for another press conference by Ellsberg on 26 November 2006 on Iran attack @ afterDowningStreet.org
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)