Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses EU News Politics

EU Moves To Ban Iran Crude Oil 361

Posted by timothy
from the crude-just-won't-do-in-the-parlor dept.
rtoz writes with this snippet from the BBC: "EU member states have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian crude oil to put pressure on the country over its nuclear programme. ... The US, which recently imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, welcomed the news. ... The Iranian state gets more than half of its revenue through the export of crude oil, says the BBC's James Reynolds. If Europe does stop buying, Iran will have to turn to countries in Asia to replace its lost trade, who will demand a discount, he adds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Moves To Ban Iran Crude Oil

Comments Filter:
  • "Guise! Guise! I know! I have it! Listen up, guise! Let's all give China cheap oil, they really need it!"

    Sort of like what the new management at /. is doing.
    Meh

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Luckyo (1726890)

      Hilariously, this is exactly what happened in Sudan. West imposed sanctions expecting unfriendly government to fold in expedient manner as such governments did many times before. Suddenly China showed up in Sudan money in hand and now Sudan is selling all of its oil to China rather then to West as it did before, and pretty much entire oil industry is in the hands of Chinese.

      Apparently this lesson has not been learned yet. Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both E

      • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:43AM (#38596868) Journal

        You mean Sudan that has now been split off into two countries, the new one being south-sudan which is now more free then before from the north-muslim and Iran backed mass murderers?

        Sorta like a not perfect but better then before result of the embargo?

        Gosh, as an example of why embargo's don't work a embargo that gave millions a change to create their own country with a better future.... why not show how the storming of the Bastille did nothing to get rid of the corrupt king. How the US decleration of dependence did not result in indepedence?

        Next time before spouting off, check what actually happened.

        • by Luckyo (1726890) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @11:22AM (#38597618)

          You should stop drinking from the tap of wonderful Western propaganda and read on what's actually happening - because you're regurgitating hilarious amounts of bullshit that has been fed to you. West isn't half happy (and for a reason) about what happened in Sudan. Sudanese had their nice post-independence slaughterfest, these are dime-a-dosen in African countries who's borders were drawn by colonialists and disregarded all cultural and ethnic borders.
          Chinese came with their non-interventionist doctrine. They do it everywhere right now, "we don't care about your politics, as long as you let us be your preferred trading partner you can rape, slaughter and pillage each other all you want".

          You see, China, they don't care what colors will be flown on the flag pole. As long as they keep their stakes in oil industry (which they now own lock, stock and bolt) and remain preferential trading partners, they couldn't care less who slaughters who, and what do butchers and victims choose to call themselves. That's the major ideological difference between China and West, and why China is expanding its influence in Africa so fast while Western influence in there is going down.
          And for the record, West doesn't really care about these slaughters either, until it's their dictator and favored tribe that start getting killed. Chinese on the other hand just deal with everyone, as they do not have the long colonial history and baggage associated with it and don't care about ideology of locals.

          If you seriously believe that splitting Sudan is for "creating your own country with a better future", I have land on the moon to sell you. Reality is, it's going to be another post-colonialist independence dictatorial shit hole split along tribal lines like dozens of other countries that went down that path ended up. There is no culture of democracy in Africa - but there is a long culture of colonialism, slavery and tribal warfare. And once you understand this and stop looking at African countries like you look at Western ones, a lot of things in there make actual sense without needing to listen to talking heads trying to shove bullshit down your throat about "what you should think is happening there".

      • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:44AM (#38596898)

        Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both EU and US got scared shitless and bombed the country into stone age.

        Is this what passes for intelligent commentary these days?

        1) Libya was not bombed into the stone age. The Ghaddafi regime lost some tanks, artillery, choppers and a few buildings were hit in the process as well.
        2) Libya was free to sell its oil to whomever it wanted before the Ghaddafi regime change, and it is so now.

        Man, and you people vote. Scary.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:13AM (#38595380)

    Iran 'might' be working on a nuclear bomb and the EU wants to put an embargo on them.
    the USA, Russia, India, China, Pakistan and Israel all HAVE nuclear bombs and the EU is happily trading and talking with them.

    Conclusion:

    Once Iran finishes it's research the EU and Iran will be Best Friends Forever.

  • by jholyhead (2505574) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:17AM (#38595434)
    We ban crude oil imports, Iran blockades the Straight of Hormuz, the US bombs Iran. They wont even need a dodgy dossier this time around. Here's to another decade of war.
    • by mapkinase (958129)

      Iran won't blockade the Straight of Hormuz.

    • The US is pretty good at conventional warfare, it's the guerilla/urban/CT stuff they suck at, because in those types it's hard to win without becoming as bad as the enemy, and the US citizens don't want that (buncha pansies, right?).

      • I agree that they're not "good" on guerilla/urban/CT stuff. Like you said, nobody can really win without being bad themselves.

        But how can you say they're still good on conventional warfare? They certainly used to be, but recently (i.e. post-Vietnam) I can't say they've ever been tested against an organized and relatively modern military. Iraq? The Taliban in Afghanistan?

        The closest they came were in Serbia. They didn't do too well there; rather preferred bombing mostly from Italian bases. They simply wo

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Don't worry, President Gingrich won't need to wait for them to blockade anything. He'll just say "Well, they're developing nukes," deliver a "They're going to nuke us all!!!!!" scare speech to the public, and ask for the money for the war from Congress (knowing the Democrats will be too cowardly to say no). And we'll be right back in it--guaranteeing him 4-8 years of passing totalitarian legislation under the guise of "Don't worry. These are just wartime powers."

      • You missed the part where he writes a book first. 'Want to know why we're bombing Tehran? Buy my book, and don't forget the commemorative DVD'
    • by Pecisk (688001)

      Well, our trade, our rules. If Iran can't handle the heat and then tries to blockade something - it's their own fault.

      But I think that Iran's leadership won't be that stupid, because it will definitely overthrown them. But if they will - maybe there's reason why all this happens.

    • by rev0lt (1950662)
      We ban crude oil imports from Iran, and then buy them indirectly from Russia. As we already do. Good thing we aren't in a middle of an economic crysis and can tolerate again an increase in fuel prices. Oh wait...
  • by quenda (644621) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:19AM (#38595460)

    All they need is to withdraw from the NPT. Iran has a perfect right to develop nuclear weapons, and a very plausible reason of deterring foreign invasion, given what happened to Iraq. Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you? At least they could take the "no comment" approach that Israel has.

    • If Iran tried to play the 'We have a right to Nuclear Weapons' card, the only question would be who drops the first bomb; Israel or the US?
      • by Myopic (18616) *

        It would be Israel, and the following day the US would put out a statement saying that they didn't know about the bombing plans (lie) but they support it (truth). The actual airplanes which drop the bombs might not have Israeli markings, as they didn't then Libya got nailed, but no doubt it would be Israel.

        • by rev0lt (1950662)
          The following day Israel would cease to exist as a state and as a recognized nation, and the Iranians would have won. And I have no dobt that it is their plan all along.
      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        the only question would be who drops the first bomb; Israel or the US?

        Which will lead to the question "How did World War III begin?" on some history student's pop-quiz 50 years from now.

    • Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you?

      They believe the ambiguity serves their goals.

    • by Myopic (18616) *

      Because they don't want to get bombed the day after making the announcement. As it is, they're pretty close to getting bombed anyway.

      It's cute to talk about the "right" to make nukes, but at the end of the day that's meaningless rhetoric. The point is that the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. Iran is neither stable nor a democracy, so the world will not tolerate it having nukes. Well, I mean, the world doesn't want to tolerate

    • by Xest (935314)

      "Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you?"

      Because that's Iran's modus operandi.

      Just like they claim to be a peaceful country, citing the fact they've not invaded a foreign country in their history, whilst funding entire proxy armies in countries like Lebanon that have ousted the legitimate government and military so that Iran can attack their arch foe Israel by proxy.

      Iran doesn't do direct, because it knows it can't win in direct confrontation. It relies on doing things subversive

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you?

      If anyone believed Iran had nuclear weapons or was close to building some, why would they be threatening to attack them?

      Western threats against Iran are pretty clear proof that Western leaders don't really believe they have nukes or are likely to do so in the near future.

    • by Pecisk (688001)

      Because Islam forbids to create such weapons (their words, not mine), maybe because they are creating it for offensive means, like punishing Israel or Western infidels for their existence. Could be a lot of things.

      World somehow doesn't have problem with Pakistan having nukes, never mind to their shaky problems (and nice support for Taliban in their several military wings). So maybe pissing West off thousand times, oppressing inner opposition would have something to do with a fact that nobody - even Russia -

      • by Garybaldy (1233166) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:46AM (#38596914)
        Actually from what i have read. That is true with one exception. The one exception is a new one. Is that during all out war nukes are tolerable. from Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121212653433219.html [aljazeera.com] In the 1980s, the revolutionary leaders of the new Islamic Republic of Iran swore off weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as un-Islamic. During the course of the war, however, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, spurring Ayatollah Khomeini to reverse his position and restart the country's chemical weapons programme. In the process, Khomeini established the philosophical foundation for a key principle within the Islamic Republic known as "maslahat-e nizam" or "expediency of the system", by which the needs of the Islamic Republic as a political institution might trump even Islamic law. This suggests that Iran's commitments not to develop WMD in the early 1980s carried an implicit understanding that the religious prohibition on such weapons does not necessarily apply in a state of war. So far, Tehran's leaders have declared that they have no interest in nuclear weapons, citing the same religious opposition as before. The US intelligence community has repeatedly assessed that if Iran wanted to develop atomic bombs, it has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to do so. Then why hasn't Iran put its technical know-how to use building up a nuclear arsenal? Experts widely agree that Tehran has yet to form a consensus in favour of actually building the bomb, and in the absence of such a consensus prefers merely to keep the option open for the future. Whether or not Iran builds a nuclear weapon, then, will be based on Tehran's cost-benefit calculation. Fundamentally, the future of Iran's nuclear programme will be decided within the context of Iran's larger foreign policy strategy, which Iran's leaders have characterised as a policy of responding to pressure with pressure. Therefore, the easiest way for Iran to arrive at a consensus in favour of building nuclear weapons would be in response to a provocation from the West.
      • by guanxi (216397)

        World somehow doesn't have problem with Pakistan having nukes

        The world does have a problem, but there's nothing they can do about it.

    • by Bomazi (1875554)

      The NPT is a deal that gives a signatory access to nuclear technology in exchange for the promise not to develop weapons. Since Iran doesn't not have a nuclear weapon program, it is not in their interest to withdraw, since they would then no longer be able to buy fuel, advice or technology from a NPT member.

      As for the consequence of a withdrawal: In theory, they could withdraw and do whatever they wanted, but that assumes that the security council follows international law. Remember India ? They didn't sign

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:20AM (#38595464)

    ...I mean, they should know that sanctions do not work, never have and more than probably never will.

    If Iran ends up having to look for new markets in Asia, with the Asian demanding a discount, Iranians will offer the discount, but maintain revenues by pumping more.

    Remember, Iran and other gulf oil states have billions and billions of oil in wells. Adding extra pumps or bringing new wells online is not that hard.

    • by Pecisk (688001)

      Errr, which part of "global recession" you don't get it? There is not that much demand for oil, and those who demand require solid cuts of prices. Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        Errr, which part of "global recession" you don't get it? There is not that much demand for oil, and those who demand require solid cuts of prices.

        Uh, yeah. That'll be why oil is over $100 a barrel.

        • by Tsingi (870990)

          Errr, which part of "global recession" you don't get it? There is not that much demand for oil, and those who demand require solid cuts of prices.

          Uh, yeah. That'll be why oil is over $100 a barrel.

          One would wonder why it is so expensive since there is an infinite amount of oil in the ground.

      • by bogaboga (793279)

        Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.

        There is not a single country in Asia that does not import oil. In fact, without Asia, an EU ban on Iranian oil imports will not bite [wsj.com]. What are you smoking?

        • by quenda (644621)

          There is not a single country in Asia that does not import oil.

          Saudi Arabia imports oil!? Kazakhstan? Brunei? Iran, Iraq, Kuwait ...
          Unless you count olive oil, somebody needs a geography lesson.

      • by chrb (1083577) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:01AM (#38596132)

        There is not that much demand for oil,

        Oh really? world oil demand 1996-2012.png [internetional.se]

        Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.

        Can you name a single EU country that is self-sufficient in oil? EU is a net importer, it has to buy on the world market, restricting supply by refusing to buy from one country means that the price goes up (unless other suppliers have the motivation and resources to increase supply at no cost, which seems doubtful in this case).

    • by El Torico (732160)

      Iran can even maintain prices by having exercises, missile tests, and making threats regularly. It's worked before.

    • by Xest (935314)

      "...I mean, they should know that sanctions do not work, never have and more than probably never will."

      Well, they have, and can. I agree sometimes they're a waste of time, but in this particular case there is some hope.

      You see, citizens rise up when their standard of living becomes unbearable, we've seen more of this in recent years, and it's no coincidence that the arab spring et al has happened at a time of global turmoil - the decrease in quality of life and increase in unemployment caused by the current

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        You see, citizens rise up when their standard of living becomes unbearable

        Yes, they do. And when their standard of living has become unbearable because of something another country has done to them, they come together and rise up against that other country, not their own government.

        Sanctions are usually beneficial for repressive governments, because they provide an external enemy.

        • by Xest (935314)

          "Yes, they do. And when their standard of living has become unbearable because of something another country has done to them, they come together and rise up against that other country, not their own government."

          Yes, if the populace is supportive of it's government in the first place. In Iran that's not the case, as previous demonstrations have shown.

          There are strong sanctions against Syria too, but blaming those putting in place the sanctions clearly hasn't helped said leadership or emboldened the populatio

      • by bogaboga (793279)

        Well, if the purpose of sanctions is to have citizens rise up then they do work. The EU should stay the course and continue towing this line.

        If on the other hand, their purpose is to force change in a government's direction, then their score is close to zero I am afraid. Now, let's see where common-sense lies.

  • Eu is US's bitch (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JustNiz (692889)

    I don't agree with the way Iran's government thinks, but it seems clear that the US government, especially the Republicans, are spoiling for another pointless and costly war, so are pressurising Iran with punitive sanctions in order to make them take the first punch so that the US can justify it.

    Even if Iran is developing a nuke, it isn't the job or right of the US to be world police. Why is it that the west can make nukes but not other countries?

    Its sad to see the EU isn't using some independent judgement

    • by PPH (736903)

      Why is it that the west can make nukes but not other countries?

      Because AIPAC says so.

    • Re:Eu is US's bitch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:31AM (#38595644)
      Consider the issues with religious extremism in the Middle East, and compare that with our own issues with religious extremism during The Crusades.

      Now, imagine that we had nukes back then. The world would have either been Christian or irradiated. This is why we're not happy about Iran, South Korea, Iraq etc having WMDs in this period of their civilisations' evolution; They need their Enlightenment first, and the Arab Spring is the start.

      Religion still plays a significant part of their political climates, and a fundamentalist with their finger on a world-ending bomb is nobody's idea of a happy Christmas. Unfortunately, the only way we can try and stop these people from getting such cataclysmically lethal weaponry (short of turning the place to glass) is to stop buying their crap so they get really poor and have to end their nuclear programmes. Hey, it's better than sending our sons over to be maimed by a roadside bomb, right?
      • Another way to look at it is that the Middle East is ahead of the Western world: They've already been through their enlightenment and are coming out of the authoritarian, theocratic dark age that the West is now headed for. Maybe it all goes in cycles?

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          Another way to look at it is that the Middle East is ahead of the Western world: They've already been through their enlightenment and are coming out of the authoritarian, theocratic dark age that the West is now headed for.

          By electing Islamic governments?

          • The religious right in the US has been getting more vocal and agitated, with candidates like Rick Perry, Palin and Bachmann getting serious attention. Anti-islamic sentiment is clearly spreading. If things go down that path who's to say there won't be a Crusades 2.0?

        • At least out authoritarian overlords won't bomb the crap out of everyone because their imaginary sky friend said so; Nobody would be left to watch the adverts between X-Factor and TOWIE.

          Of course these things go in cycles. Or more accurately, they shift from one medium to another. Previously we worshipped at the church of the bearded dude in the sky, now we worship at the church of the bald-headed dude with the polo-neck. The difference is that our new gods are corporeal, and don't tell us to blow up heath
      • by LanMan04 (790429)

        Unfortunately, the only way we can try and stop these people from getting such cataclysmically lethal weaponry (short of turning the place to glass) is to stop buying their crap so they get really poor and have to end their nuclear programmes.

        Because that worked so well with North Korea...?

    • Maybe because the US is not run by a crazy bastard? At least not until 2013.

    • by Pecisk (688001)

      Errr, how sanctions are exactly pushing for war? Trading embargos are much less cruel tool, and more effective one (it destroyed Sadam, by the way). In fact, Republicans calling for blood for a year or so and call Obama pussy on Iran. They actually don't care about sanctions, they think it's never gonna work, they just want to go to Crusade and fulfill prophecies about Armageddon.

      And no, please just stop right here about US and world police. US have done lot of things wrong, but with Iran I'm fully supporti

      • by ArcherB (796902)

        Errr, how sanctions are exactly pushing for war? Trading embargos are much less cruel tool, and more effective one (it destroyed Sadam, by the way)

        Sorry, but no. The US military destroyed Saddam. All the sanctions did was keep Saddam from rebuilding his military and kill about million kids due to preventable diseases and make life for the general population absolutely miserable. Sure, the UN sanctions allowed for medicines, but Saddam skirted them, substituting banned goods in crates labeled "medicine". Saddam would be in power today if the US military had not acted. Sanctions don't work. They just torture the general population. See also N. Kor

  • Not so helpful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stomv (80392) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:22AM (#38595504) Homepage

    The EU nations import 8.5 million barrels a day. USA: 13.5. Japan: 5.5. China: 4.5. South Korea: 2.5. Get *all* of those nations to ban Iran crude and you'll substantially affect Iranian prices for the worse (and prices within the embargoing nations for the worse, too). Just EU? Meh. EU plus USA? Still meh since in fact most of the current USA's imports come from the Americas. But EU, USA, Japan, SKorea? Now we're talking. As Iran goes further and further down the list of importing nations they start having to deal with shipping into smaller ports, into ports which can't take as much oil as quickly, etc. Less efficient transactions and less efficient shipping, and potentially for a lower base price because the countries agreeing to buy Iranian oil will have negotiating leverage.

    In the mean time, it wouldn't be the worst thing for each of the potentially embargoing nations to figure out how to reduce the oil required for each unit of GDP, health, or any other metric of "goodness" that the nation uses. After all, an oil embargo hurts both trade partners, but reducing demand hurts the seller and improves conditions for the (former) buyer.

    • by chrb (1083577)

      You are correct: if the supply of buyers can be restricted enough, then (from the Iranian perspective) there is a situation of decreased demand but level supply, which will cause short term effects of decreased exports and decreased purchase price. But in the longer term, an increased supply of cheap oil will benefit those nations that are willing to trade with Iran, leading to structural changes within those nations (larger ports, pipelines where possible etc.) Look at this graph of oil use per capita [ezimages.net] - cl

  • In fact a few years back(not sure if this is still in effect), Iran essentially asked Japan to pay in yen [bloomberg.com](which of course in hindsight seems incredibly wise, as the yen has almost doubled in value since then), one of the first really big oil contracts to be denominated in a currency other than dollars. Should be an interesting diplomacy game to see if Washington is even able to convince Japan to restrict Iranian oil imports....

    Regardless, this is the stupidity of Bush's cowboy diplomacy and Obama's kowtowing to Republicans coming home to roost. We are certainly going to be paying a lot for letting the man-child try to impress daddy and play war general.
    • by 0123456 (636235)

      Obama's kowtowing to Republicans

      I think you mis-spelt 'neo-cons', who are mostly ex-Trots.

  • World Government (Score:2, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474)

    Sovereignty of EU "nations" has been completely thrown out of the window, first by establishing the EU government and then by completely giving in to all of these nonsense US and UN driven deals.

    Of-course with most of Europe being welfare states and not actually working for what they are consuming (and most of US being in the same position), the interests of the individuals and the sovereignty of nations are completely disregarded in order to provide the continuation of the unsustainable life styles that ar

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:48AM (#38595896) Homepage Journal
    pray tell me. if you say 'they are a hardliner state', you will find israel MUCH more hardliner than any other country on the planet. just listen to what liebermann says (external affairs minister of israel). you'll be dumbfounded. just watch what gets publicly spoken in one of their leading party assemblies. youll be appalled.

    the signs that israel has nuclear capability is always dodged by all international agencies and governments. yet, iran gets the heat for less.

    or maybe it is because only countries that are either in angloamerican or russian alliances are entitled to have nuclear weapons ?

    never mind. the question was rhetorical.
    • by mjr167 (2477430) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @11:10AM (#38597376)

      For the same reason that we occasionally take drivers licenses or weapons permits away from people that have demonstrated an inability to use their fun toys in a responsible manner conducive to the safety of others. Do you have a problem with your neighbor having a small arsenal when he behaves like a responsible citizen? No. However, when he starts brandishing the weapons around and threatening your family you call the cops and have him dealt with.

      Iran has expressed a repeated and rather vocal interest in destroying the US and Isreal. I happen to live in the US and so have a vested interested in our continued existence. No one gives a crap about countries like France having nukes because no one thinks France is crazy enough to destroy the world. We like to postulate about Russia's nukes, but in the end Russia also does not want to destroy the world because Russia likes living in the world. Iran, conversely, has stated multiple times that self-destruction is an acceptable end game provided they get to take us with them. If I thought Iran would play nice, I wouldn't have a problem with them arming themselves. Once they demonstrate the ability to behave like a responsible nation in the world community, they too can have the big weapons.

  • Oil is a fungible commodity. Which particular buyer will be buying depends only on the cost of delivery. If Iran's oil is being sold to Europe, that just means that it's cheaper to deliver it to Europe than it is to deliver it to Asia. Delivering it to the buyers to whom it is more expensive to deliver will do nothing but increase the world-wide cost of oil by introducing a less-than-optimal delivery cost into the overall delivery mechanism.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      Actually, it means it's more profitable to deliver to the EU. an Important distinction.

  • The value to rial dropped with news of the US sanctions.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/iran-currency-dollar-idUSL6E8C30JN20120103 [reuters.com]

    The exchange rate hovered at 17,200 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar last month.
    • Iran is relatively independent and otherwise well connected locally and to other neighboring nations like China and India (check the main importers and exporters [wikipedia.org]). The rate would have little impact on Iran itself.

      Loss of rial to USD means that the US traders do not need the currency, which is needed only to do the business with Iran. And there were very little business to begin with.

  • by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:25AM (#38596574)

    The EU is going to ban Iranian oil, fine. They are also proposing to ban Canadian oil, ok. But if you start alienating countries that have large reserves of oil, where the hell do you think you are going to get your oil from in the future? If Iran stops is nuclear programs under these sanctions or Canada finds more efficient less polluting ways of extracting oil from tar sands, then why would they return to doing business with the EU? There are larger markets then the EU out there that are not so finicky.

    Not a week goes by that I don't hear about another stupid decision made by the EU in one shape or another which limits consumer rights and under the EU "protection", most EU countries are entering bankruptcy.

    So why do Europeans put up with it?

    Do only people outside the EU understand it is a epic disaster?

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "return to doing business with the EU? "
      money. Why change to meet EU standards if you aren't going to be selling to the EU?

      The reason their is a financial issue is because large financial institution abused their position. Those bankers must laugh all the way to..we the bank whenever someone blames 'regulations' and 'public workers' for the economic crisis.

  • IT would be far better to help Iran. Help them build a nuclear program. When you word with someone, you gain an understanding of their culture. It's harder to hate someone you understand.

    Peace through Atoms was successful. We never should have stopped.

  • by ThePhilips (752041) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:55AM (#38597086) Homepage Journal

    Instead of helping Iran being more developed, better integrated with the rest of the world, so that a**holes like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not get elected, we do what?

    All this high rhetoric about Iran is such a non-sense. The EU and US simply do not want Iran to become a major international player because they are very well positioned to also become very important player.

    On a slow week-end I have read through all the Wikipedia material on Iran [wikipedia.org] and honestly the mention of what Iran needs (and it needs little) to become a superpower are all over the place. Embargoes would do little, only slow it down. Real change inside the Iran could happen when Iran becomes a superpower - but it seems our politicians are not in favor of it.

    BTW, slow down of Iran's peaceful nuclear program will have an impact on us in oil/gas dependent countries. Oil and gas are major sources of energy in Iran [wikipedia.org], but efficiency of Iran's processing is very low. Nuclear program supposed to free up quite a lot of the gas and the oil and allow to increase export or simply save the resources instead of wasting them.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...