USA did control and influenced how Iran sell its oil during Shah time after Mosadegh. Yes, you just sell your oil and get your money but who you selling it to, how much oil to produce, or the price of oil can effect global economy and power shifts. USA has been controling this market and Iran since revolution hasn't been acting the way USA like, Saudi in other hand been the best maid for USA.
This reminds me of one cold day in 1357. There was a protest going on and me and my dad were passing by. The shoaar was "Naft ra ki dad Amrika? Gaaz ra ki daad Shoravi? Marg bar in saltanate Pahlavi." My dad told one of the yougsters that was shouting "majani ke nadadeh. Daadeh? goft "na vali forookht be Amrika" Babam goft "khob marde hesabi yeki bayad bekhared". The guy looked puzzled and just kept on shouting.
i am not sue if anyone is controlling any oil these days.back in the old days it was possible due to limited access and lack of information but right now it s not possible to do it.of course the u.s. wants to keep the oil flowing but since it is becoming a net energy exporter soon their priorities will change.carter doctrine made the security of the persian gulf the #1 goal for u.s. national security.that is not the case any longer.obama's pivot to asia is making the security in that region as the #1 goal of u.s. national security.this means the u.s. has to wrap up their large presence in the middle east and bring it to the minimum.the cost is just too much and frankly we don't have the resources to do it much longer.so they need a reliable partner to keep the persian gulf safe and out of the total domination of china/russia/eu.the french and the british have already started to take advantage of this in libya,tunisia and now syria.but the persian gulf is the biggest prize and the only power that can keep it safe for americans is iran.americans know it better than anyone else and have probably discussed it in private with their current "allies".hence the vehement opposition of the semites(both arabs and jews) in the region with this plan.perhaps the americans have had secret talks with iran on this subject .which is why iranian officials out of the blue talk about being 'reliable partners" for america.
your problem is assuming me reading things that I don't, assuming thing that never happened. USA wants to have a government in Iran that is friendly to USA policies in oil market. It would be very naive for anyone to think USA doesn't have an eye over Iranian oil not because they needed but to control the market and limiting of oil going to China. Mosadegh Nationalized the oil which meant those British company couldn't rape us like they were doing, Oil company lost huge amount of profits over that. Mosadegh was not friendly to UK and USA policies on oil market, he came out changed it in Iran and was a spark around the world. CIA had to do something. You can't say what Mosadegh would have done while he never had a chance to, the only thing is clear is what he has done and it wasn't friendly to western oil companies.
Iran begging to sell oil because some akhunds want some money, it's true. What also is true most countries are begging USA to buy oil from Iran. China also buy a lot of oil from Iran and they pay gold for it. American hate to see this transactions going on while China keep getting their oil from Iran and Mollahs getting their Gold from China.
Iran begging to sell oil because some akhunds want some money, it's true. What also is true most countries are begging USA to buy oil from Iran. China also buy a lot of oil from Iran and they pay gold for it. American hate to see this transactions going on while China keep getting their oil from Iran and Mollahs getting their Gold from China.
the end game is starting to take shape in the middle east.this is another brick in the wall that is falling off for the first time as eu officially sanctions isreal:http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169966#.Uea76NLVBFw
and yet another brick in the wall is falling:
But that dynamic appeared to change this week. First, 131 House members signed a letter to the administration encouraging it to pursue diplomacy with Iran, which has just elected a reformist new president, Hassan Rouhani. Known as the Dent-Price letter for its principal authors, Reps. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) and David Price (D-N.C.), it states: “We believe it would be a mistake not to test whether Dr. Rouhani’s election represents a real opportunity for progress toward a verifiable, enforceable agreement. … In order to test this proposition, it will be prudent for the United States to utilize all diplomatic tools to reinvigorate ongoing nuclear talks.”
The letter’s 128 signers are far from a congressional majority, of course, and include only 17 Republicans. But it’s a big deal when a body as traditionally opposed to diplomacy with Iran has so many members publicly calling for it. A pro-engagement group called it “unprecedented.” Calling for diplomatic engagement with Iran is simply not a policy with a strong domestic constituency.
A second datapoint is sanctions. Usually, every summer, Congress will send a bill to the White House tightening sanctions against Iran, whether the White House thinks that’s a good idea or not. But this year, members are breaking tradition: Congressional Quarterly’s Emily Cadei reports that Congress’s annual sanctions legislation has slipped on the calendar and won’t be done until October at the earliest, if it’s even ready this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...unusual-direction-toward-diplomacy-with-iran/
But that dynamic appeared to change this week. First, 131 House members signed a letter to the administration encouraging it to pursue diplomacy with Iran, which has just elected a reformist new president, Hassan Rouhani. Known as the Dent-Price letter for its principal authors, Reps. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) and David Price (D-N.C.), it states: “We believe it would be a mistake not to test whether Dr. Rouhani’s election represents a real opportunity for progress toward a verifiable, enforceable agreement. … In order to test this proposition, it will be prudent for the United States to utilize all diplomatic tools to reinvigorate ongoing nuclear talks.”
The letter’s 128 signers are far from a congressional majority, of course, and include only 17 Republicans. But it’s a big deal when a body as traditionally opposed to diplomacy with Iran has so many members publicly calling for it. A pro-engagement group called it “unprecedented.” Calling for diplomatic engagement with Iran is simply not a policy with a strong domestic constituency.
A second datapoint is sanctions. Usually, every summer, Congress will send a bill to the White House tightening sanctions against Iran, whether the White House thinks that’s a good idea or not. But this year, members are breaking tradition: Congressional Quarterly’s Emily Cadei reports that Congress’s annual sanctions legislation has slipped on the calendar and won’t be done until October at the earliest, if it’s even ready this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...unusual-direction-toward-diplomacy-with-iran/
the events are pretty much shaping up as expected and there are now open calls for what i have been advocating.
[h=1]Time to Pivot US Foreign Policy to Iran[/h]
There is one Muslim country in that region in which time spent by U.S. diplomacy can reap rich dividends: Iran. It is a country of 75 million people, of enormous geopolitical importance with borders that straddle countries that are of vital American national interest. It is a country that is destined to be a regional heavyweight and to serve as one of the region's key balance wheels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarwar-kashmeri/time-to-pivot-us-foreign-_b_3813805.html
[h=1]Time to Pivot US Foreign Policy to Iran[/h]
There is one Muslim country in that region in which time spent by U.S. diplomacy can reap rich dividends: Iran. It is a country of 75 million people, of enormous geopolitical importance with borders that straddle countries that are of vital American national interest. It is a country that is destined to be a regional heavyweight and to serve as one of the region's key balance wheels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarwar-kashmeri/time-to-pivot-us-foreign-_b_3813805.html
my note on the current situation in syria.the range of options for obama are very limited.he has been reluctantlyforced into this situation.the fact of the matter is the dying of an empire is always an ugly affair.the u.s. empire is not going to be any different. all the little "servants" in saudi+qatar are hiding under the "skirt of the empire" and pushing the master to use force on their behalf so they can stay afloat a bit longer.the british empire went through this process about 100 years ago.it's the inevitable force of time and nothing can prevent it.which is why the coming military action insyria is being opposed not only by the american military but the overwhelming majority of americans.they ask themselves a simplequestion:"what is the objective of any military strikes?".lobbing a few missiles into syria,ala what clinton did to aq in afghanistan back in the 90s,is not going to get rid of the current government in syria.it will also not be of much help the jihadis terrorists in their fight against the syrian government.and the only 'message' it sends to syrian military brass isa very cynical one.because after the alleged killing of 100k people in syria,and no american response, the message is going to be interpreted as "you can kill as many people as you want as long as you don't use chemical weapons".on the military front there is more than a big danger to american ships in the mediteranian as the pre-emptiveisreali strike on the russian supplied 'yakhont' anti-ship missiles was not a total success.http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...me-Yakhont-missiles-U-S-officials-say.htmlany hit on american ships willescalate the situation out of control and will require either a substantial increase in the use of military or a back down.in short this is clearly a lose lose situation and obama knows it but he has no choice now since his little 'cheer leaders" in the persian gulf will remind him that he lacks credibility if he does not act.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdH08ojKSsc
the case for 'strikes' against syria is becoming a joke now.the best line i heard was 'syria is already bombed and in ruins what are we going to bomb?' the u.s. has briefed iran on it's plans through the un envoy who was in tehran earlier this week.it's probably on the lines of we are going to make this a very limited affair to appease iranian hardliners.the hardliners in iran on the other hand will not let this go easy and will try their best to derail any chance of direct talke with the usa any time soon.the new president in iran is one of the losers here as post-syria strike he can not expect to get much of an ear for his 'moderate' policies.the clear winner in all this are the aq, their jihadist terrorists in syria and their financial and military suppliers in qatar+saudi+uae.it is interesting to note that after all the work gw bush put in rallying the world against aq it is now the us military who is 'with them' and bush's mantra of 'you are either with us or agianst us' is soon becoming a distant joke from the past.but perhaps the saddest part for americans and the main reason for their overwhelming opposition to these strikes is the realization that their military has now become a mercenary army that is being bought by the rich fat shiekhs in the persian gulf as their personal hit squad to deliver a hit on syria.as i stated before the dying process on empire is never pretty to watch!
HEADLINES
U.S. ready to go it alone on Syria
Way to go Babmi. I am beginning to like you. Do what is right.
U.S. ready to go it alone on Syria
Way to go Babmi. I am beginning to like you. Do what is right.
