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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (80409)	6/21/2008 11:53:33 PM
From: Webster Groves	Respond to of 116555

Iran doesn't need to sink a single tanker to win this confrontation. Insurance companies will not pay on an act of war, so the tankers will stay far away. Net effect, no oil delivered. The US could then seize US tankers and sail them into the Straits, but how many tankers fly US flags - any ? wg

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (80409)	6/22/2008 9:26:13 AM
From: ajtj99	Respond to of 116555

Iran stated last year that if the US attacked them, they'd set the Strait of Hormuz on fire by blowing up tankers in port and passing by. It would be impossible to insure tankers going through that area, and oil shipments from the Middle East would nearly cease. Oil would likely move up to crazy heights like $300-$400/bbl if this happened. Iran has not said they would do this if Israel attacked, but you can't rule it out either. Iran is likely past peak oil production. They are a net importer of gasoline, mostly because of the subsidies that keep the street price at $0.41/gallon. However, the surge in energy use in that country means they will be a net importer of energy by 2015 at the current rate of growth. With no local supply of alternatives to oil and natural gas, they really have no choice but to look to nuclear energy for the future. Maybe this administration could work with them on a biofuel prorgram. They could show them how to grow switchgrass and corn in the deserts. People are going to learn they have to cozy up to a future powered by nuclear energy. It really is one of the few sources of power that can sustain the growth of the planet regardless of climate or geographical location. It's also 60-year old technology, so it's not like it's state of the art or anything.

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (80409)	6/22/2008 12:53:25 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

""Odds are very good that they can deliver on their threat"" I tend to agree that the tankers located near the straits are sitting ducks if it starts. Also, locating and destroying all the shore to ship missles would be nearly impossible. However, I do not think the Isralies will heed advice from anyone if they see that Iran is close to having nuclear capability. They are not under the US president's whimsical control. This means that if Iran's current government proceeds, they may well trigger a situation that leaves the US picking up the pieces --- including defending the straits as best it can. I doubt that China gives a care about Iranian islamist religeous nuts. If these nuts should appear in China, they would be suppressed violently. China believes in order and opposes anarchy. Pragmatically they supply arms to Iran so Iran supplies oil to China & China has no military power in the muddle east. China is not engaged in foreign military adventures -- instead they are trying to build the China economy and gain access to needed resources.

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (80409)	6/22/2008 1:46:40 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 116555

koan; "That was a great post!" John Q Public: "It certainly is a tricky and dangerous situation. It's a high stakes poker game and the player representing us is an idiot. I suspect all here agree that whatever is going to happen will occur before Bush is out of office. There are good arguments for him doing it before the elections to help McCain's "patriotic" stance, but Americans are already pretty ticked off that he started an unprovoked war with Iraq, and lied to the American people to do it. Bush is more likely to do it after the elections, especially when McCain loses. He has nothing to lose then and, in his twisted little mind, may actually believe he is doing the right thing by starting yet another war. I believe you may overestimate the American ability to stop retaliation. Iran is no Iraq. While we would certainly win in an all out confrontation, an all out confrontation isn't likely to happen. The Iraqis were downright stupid in their strategy. Iran has seen what happens when you play the game by a superior enemy's rules. They are more likely to disperse their supersonic ground to ship missiles around the Middle East, if they haven't already done so. You might as well paint giant bulls eyes on all the oil tankers because they will start sinking all over the place. There isn't squat our military can do about that without bringing China, and possibly Russia, into the picture. The terrain around the Straits of Hormuz are also mountainous. Given that tankers are literally sitting ducks, almost anything can be launched to sink them. The Iranian retaliation threat should not be taken lightly. Odds are very good that they can deliver on their threat.