Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4371)	11/25/2001 1:18:08 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36161

Kastel, Good points. That non-nation state organizations might acquire weapons that could devastate whole continents dramatically changed a lot of countries geopolitical perspectives. Next the Iranians are a unique culture in so many ways. First ethnically, they are descendants of the Aryan tribal group.The ancient Aryans came from the southern steppes of Asia and spun off for e.g., most of the European tribes, the Celts, the Germans, the Iberic peoples, the Slavs, and the Balts who emigrated westward into the European continent. In Asia amongst the major Aryan tribes were the Hindi who moved south and fought with the original Dravidian peoples of the Indian subcontinent and the Parthic peoples who settled Iran/western Afghanistan. (Actually Asians and Europeans only split into distinct tribal groups just 5,000 years ago). So if you are Hindi or generally European, then the Iranians are your close relatives or blood brothers/blood sisters. They are not semitic or sephartic which acocunts for a healthy chunk of original Middle eastern tribes ethnic makeup (But even the peoples of the Middle East saw lots of intermixture with European and Asian blood lines). So as between the Middle East and Iran you have an ethnic difference which roils the waters a bit. Then historically the Iranians/Parthian/Selucids (choose your name)were outstanding warriors. If youhave the time pick up a copy of the Annals of Tacitus and read about the Romans fighting the Parthians. For e.g., in 53 BC the Parthians sent Crassus' head back to Rome in a basket. That left only two members of the original Triumpherate, Pompey and Caesar to face each other. (Think that affected history?). Other than for a short Roman occupation of parts of Parthia during the famous military Emperors reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, Rome could never beat the Parthian Empire. Historically only two groups have accomplished that feat- the Arabs in their expansionary era and then technically Genghis Khan who blew through the area like a buzzsaw but then quickly retuned to Asia and left no lasting impacts- just death and destruction.... That's a long-winded introduction to the theory that Iraq and Iran are the major adversaries in the Middle East IMO. Iran is three times the size of Iraq, and also over the last fives years have tremendously upgraded their military capability by acquiring top of the line weapon systems from the Russians...To the point where Iran would likely defeat Iraq in a conventional war scenario... ...And emphasize conventional war. With Iraq's buildup of a biological and nuclear weaopns arsenal, Iran can't be feeling too comfortable in their geographic position. Iran may not like the western powers- However it will likely help the western powers "defang" Iraq since it is in their geopolitical interest. So ignore the carping of the old "beards" in Iran and focus upon the actions of their political leadership.My guess is that some sort of working relationship between Iran and the western powers will develop (so long as the West feels comfortable with Iran's own nuclear and biological weapons program). If that relationship develops, then expect Iran to see global petro- dollars flowing in their direction. That suggests for e.g that the Conoco-Iran offshore project may move forward in time....