[jdeegan]

I was pretty complacent that Obama and Netanyahu recently made the obvious deal. Namely, the US will help Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear program, but Israel has to hold off until after the election. That way Obama should win the election easily. Iran may or may not decide to fold in the meantime (one oddsmaker figures 70-30 in favor of folding). Either way, Bibi can take credit for heading off Holocaust II, and the Kingdom will be pleased.

Now I am starting to get the yips. Is there any chance the Israelis will jump the gun? That would mean $200+ per barrel oil before the election. And what are the real odds that the Iranians will fold?

I have some money down on this situation, and I would love to hear any comments and/or opinions.

[Phil]

Al_U_Card please give JDeegan his password back please.

[luke warm]

look for obama's rhetoric re: iran to heat up over the next few months... he will say anything he can to convince israel that he (the u.s.a.) has israel's back, that we will *never* allow iran to go nuclear... my gut feeling is that obama really isn't convinced that a nuclear iran is as dangerous as israel, and others, portray it to be... if that is his view, he's wrong... but this is not the kind of "wrong" where you can say "oops, my bad"...

[MrAce]

 jdeegan, on 2012-March-31, 04:58, said:

I was pretty complacent that Obama and Netanyahu recently made the obvious deal. Namely, the US will help Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear program, but Israel has to hold off until after the election. That way Obama should win the election easily. Iran may or may not decide to fold in the meantime (one oddsmaker figures 70-30 in favor of folding). Either way, Bibi can take credit for heading off Holocaust II, and the Kingdom will be pleased.

Now I am starting to get the yips. Is there any chance the Israelis will jump the gun? That would mean $200+ per barrel oil before the election. And what are the real odds that the Iranians will fold?

I have some money down on this situation, and I would love to hear any comments and/or opinions.

Stop watching fox news, it makes you post this kinda silly stuff.

[BunnyGo]

 jdeegan, on 2012-March-31, 04:58, said:

I was pretty complacent that Obama and Netanyahu recently made the obvious deal. Namely, the US will help Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear program, but Israel has to hold off until after the election. That way Obama should win the election easily. Iran may or may not decide to fold in the meantime (one oddsmaker figures 70-30 in favor of folding). Either way, Bibi can take credit for heading off Holocaust II, and the Kingdom will be pleased.

Now I am starting to get the yips. Is there any chance the Israelis will jump the gun? That would mean $200+ per barrel oil before the election. And what are the real odds that the Iranians will fold?

I have some money down on this situation, and I would love to hear any comments and/or opinions.

Ok, besides simply voting up Phil and MrAce, I'll give a serious response:

If Israel bombs Iran, it will likely be with minimal US help. There's a very interesting article to that effect by one of the pilots who bombed the Osira plant in Iraq 20 years ago. He commented that at the time the US couldn't believe the Israelis could hit such a target, and demanded to know what extra technology the Israelis had to do it.

Secondly, Netanyahu is one of the more despised politicians in Israel. While there are many people who support his party, or his platforms, a majority of them (perhaps based on my biased sampling of people here and the media I consume) seem to perceive him as something of a Mitt Romney, he'd say anything to stay in power. Netanyahu will not honor any deal with Obama that he doesn't feel serves his immediate need to stay in power.

Obama has just announced that either way, he'll be doing everything possible to stop oil shipments from Iran, with or without a war. The announcement states that the Saudis and other nations who also are begging for someone to stop Iran are willing to compensate the world market until the situation is resolved.

So, as for your assumptions, I find them a bit uninformed. As for your questions:

Quote

Is there any chance the Israelis will jump the gun?

Yes, yes there is. The journalists and informed analysts I've been reading suggest about 50-50 odds of this in 2012.

Quote

That would mean $200+ per barrel oil before the election.

Could be if there are speculators, but I doubt--based on the Saudi commitments to Israel and the US--that this will happen simply on a supply/demand/instability issue.

Quote

And what are the real odds that the Iranians will fold?

That's the big question. For the answer, I suggest reading "The Prince", which I think is a highly underrated book. My personal belief is that if anything will stop this it is an internal power struggle. I base this not on any extra information that isn't publicly available, but simply that "folding" would be the wrong move for the leader of a "kingdom with a discontent population." I wouldn't be as surprised if a 2nd in command uses this to usurp power, but I'd be surprised if the current leaders "change their minds".

[jdeegan]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-April-01, 03:59, said:

Ok, besides simply voting up Phil and MrAce, I'll give a serious response:

If Israel bombs Iran, it will likely be with minimal US help. There's a very interesting article to that effect by one of the pilots who bombed the Osira plant in Iraq 20 years ago. He commented that at the time the US couldn't believe the Israelis could hit such a target, and demanded to know what extra technology the Israelis had to do it.

Secondly, Netanyahu is one of the more despised politicians in Israel. While there are many people who support his party, or his platforms, a majority of them (perhaps based on my biased sampling of people here and the media I consume) seem to perceive him as something of a Mitt Romney, he'd say anything to stay in power. Netanyahu will not honor any deal with Obama that he doesn't feel serves his immediate need to stay in power.

Obama has just announced that either way, he'll be doing everything possible to stop oil shipments from Iran, with or without a war. The announcement states that the Saudis and other nations who also are begging for someone to stop Iran are willing to compensate the world market until the situation is resolved.

So, as for your assumptions, I find them a bit uninformed. As for your questions:


Yes, yes there is. The journalists and informed analysts I've been reading suggest about 50-50 odds of this in 2012.


Could be if there are speculators, but I doubt--based on the Saudi commitments to Israel and the US--that this will happen simply on a supply/demand/instability issue.



That's the big question. For the answer, I suggest reading "The Prince", which I think is a highly underrated book. My personal belief is that if anything will stop this it is an internal power struggle. I base this not on any extra information that isn't publicly available, but simply that "folding" would be the wrong move for the leader of a "kingdom with a discontent population." I wouldn't be as surprised if a 2nd in command uses this to usurp power, but I'd be surprised if the current leaders "change their minds".

Have not read The Prince since college. All I care about is the spot price of Brent crude in October 2012 and December 2012. The realities of Iran's "folding" or even if that actually matters is really still a mystery to me. My December position is just an afterthought.

[Gerben42]

 luke warm, on 2012-March-31, 14:48, said:

look for obama's rhetoric re: iran to heat up over the next few months... he will say anything he can to convince israel that he (the u.s.a.) has israel's back, that we will *never* allow iran to go nuclear... my gut feeling is that obama really isn't convinced that a nuclear iran is as dangerous as israel, and others, portray it to be... if that is his view, he's wrong... but this is not the kind of "wrong" where you can say "oops, my bad"...

Well I know that I am not believing Netanyahu and that the threat of Iran getting an atomic bomb is not sufficient to justify an invasion. Although it is terrible enough that such weapons exist (which is really not the fault of the Iranians...), even the Iranian government won't be stupid enough to use such a weapon. After the US election, Obama, if he wins, can be more free to not back Israel on every move but instead be critical of any aggressive action. In his second term, maybe he can really earn his premature Nobel prize. I sure hope he will.

[mgoetze]

 jdeegan, on 2012-April-01, 10:06, said:

Have not read The Prince since college. All I care about is the spot price of Brent crude in October 2012 and December 2012. The realities of Iran's "folding" or even if that actually matters is really still a mystery to me. My December position is just an afterthought.

If you want to go long oil I recommend Venezualan bonds instead.

[Cthulhu D]

Bombing Iran would be insane, but Israel is obvious waging an assassination campaign against the Iranians.

The Iranian's won't fold, but I doubt they will do anything either. They are taking a page right out of the North Korean playbook where they are going to act like dicks in return for free stuff now and the promise of a reduction in future dickery, which they then ignore to re-run the play as soon as they have their money.

The problem is you cannot call them on it because if the wheels fall off it's going to be bad. It will be much more bad in North Korea than Iran (which has power structures other than the state in place), but no-one wants it to happen.

[luke warm]

 Gerben42, on 2012-April-01, 11:28, said:

After the US election, Obama, if he wins, can be more free to not back Israel on every move but instead be critical of any aggressive action. In his second term, maybe he can really earn his premature Nobel prize. I sure hope he will.

well that's a scary thought... why back a democratic friend when you can back enemies that hate us? yeah, you might be right, he might do that very thing

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-01, 22:02, said:

Bombing Iran would be insane, but Israel is obvious waging an assassination campaign against the Iranians.

yeah, israel needs to stop picking on poor iran, not to mention iran's surrogates (hezbollah and hamas and al-qaeda)

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2012-April-02, 15:39, said:

well that's a scary thought... why back a democratic friend when you can back enemies that hate us? yeah, you might be right, he might do that very thing

Comment 1: I'd hardly call the Netanyahu government a friend to Obama administration, or for that matter the US.

Friends don't threaten to drag you into an exciting new war in the Near East
Friends don't risk $400 dollar a barrel oil and a new global depression

Comment 2: I'd hardly characterize "not bombing Iran" as backing enemies that hate us. There is a range of policy options between bombing and overt support.

Comment 3: I understand that you have a rather Manichean view of the world, however, its worth noting that Iran is hardly monolithic. There is an enormous difference between the Revolutionary guard which is currently running the government and the people who are (broadly) reform minded. However, if you're really intent on on unifying Iran against, by all means launch yet another attack on a Muslim country.

Comment 4: An attack on Iran won't stop their military program. It will only delay things by a couple years. This sort of attack has a very good chnace of backfiring and accelerating the the speed with which Iran gets a nuke by completely destablizing Pakistan...

[Phil]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-01, 22:02, said:

They are taking a page right out of the North Korean playbook.

Who is the mongoose to North Korea's snake? (Don't say South Korea please).

[luke warm]

 hrothgar, on 2012-April-02, 16:02, said:

Comment 1: I'd hardly call the Netanyahu government a friend to Obama administration, or for that matter the US.

i should have thrown the word "historic" in there somewhere... the fact remains, the world is better served with the u.s.a. supporting those with whom it shares a common political philosophy

Quote

Friends don't threaten to drag you into an exciting new war in the Near East. Friends don't risk $400 dollar a barrel oil and a new global depression

it's barely possible that israel is, out of historical and racial necessity, acting in its own best interest... they are doing what they think necessary to survive

Quote

There is an enormous difference between the Revolutionary guard which is currently running the government and the people who are (broadly) reform minded.

and the world would have been, and would be, better served if we supported (to the fullest extent possible) those people...

Quote

Comment 4: An attack on Iran won't stop their military program. It will only delay things by a couple years.

how do you know? there are those who disagree

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2012-April-03, 04:01, said:

and the world would have been, and would be, better served if we supported (to the fullest extent possible) those people...

We did.

Quote

how do you know? there are those who disagree

The best know individual associated with the position that I exposed is ex-Mossad head Meir Dagan

[BunnyGo]

 hrothgar, on 2012-April-03, 04:25, said:

The best know individual associated with the position that I exposed is ex-Mossad head Meir Dagan

True, but the position you exposed is identical to the ones held with Iraq in 1981 and Syria just a few years ago. There has repeatedly been a difference between purely technical setbacks and momentum setbacks. The loss of the sites that only constituted a 1-3 year setback in both cases, ended up scuttling the whole plan. I dunno what'd happen this time, but 1-3 years has been wrong in both of the similar situations.

[kenberg]

 Gerben42, on 2012-April-01, 11:28, said:

Although it is terrible enough that such weapons exist (which is really not the fault of the Iranians...), even the Iranian government won't be stupid enough to use such a weapon.

Perhaps, but I imagine the same could once have been said about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yes, there are differences. There are always differences.

It's a delicate game the Iranians are playing. Act crazy enough that we give in to them on many things, not so crazy that we take them on with full force. Sooner or later someone will make a wrong play. Maybe Israel. Maybe the US. Maybe the Iranians. Beats me, but it ain't good.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2012-April-03, 05:39, said:

Perhaps, but I imagine the same could once have been said about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yes, there are differences. There are always differences.

It's a delicate game the Iranians are playing. Act crazy enough that we give in to them on many things, not so crazy that we take them on with full force. Sooner or later someone will make a wrong play. Maybe Israel. Maybe the US. Maybe the Iranians. Beats me, but it ain't good.

In what way are the Iranian's acting "crazy"?

The Iranian regime is generally pictured as quite rational.
We might not like the way that they are acting, but they're very rational.

[blackshoe]

That's pretty much how wars always start - somebody makes a wrong play.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2012-April-03, 05:59, said:

In what way are the Iranian's acting "crazy"?

The Iranian regime is generally pictured as quite rational.
We might not like the way that they are acting, but they're very rational.

Funding terrorist organizations perhaps is not crazy but maybe you would accept provocative? I didn't mean to be taken entirely literally. They have an agenda that they are promoting skillfully. Not crazy. Otoh, they are walking pretty close to the edge, I think. Go back to another time and place. Putting missiles in Cuba was either crazy or shrewd, depending on how it worked out. Same with the Bay of Pigs. And building a nuclear capability while talking about the necessary destruction of Israel is, well, you choose.

Walking close to the edge might be a better choice of words than crazy. I have no great insight at all into Iran, or Israel, or anywhere else. But I doubt that Israel will stand by indefinitely. I haven't studied Obama's statements but I gather he at least wanted the Israelis to believe he is committed to preventing a nuclear Iran. I expect there are escape clauses. Maybe we have agreed to be really upset if Iran starts testing nuclear weapons.

Iran, so it appears to me, sees itself as the per-eminent state in the Middle East. It wants nukes. For power, prestige, glory, what have you. I suppose, like most states including the US, it's leaders are motivated by some combination of ego, sense of destiny, duty, stupidity, and so on. Putting ego first on the list was not an accident. Throw in at least some religious mania no doubt. There are more than a few people here who think God has chosen the US for a special role. I suppose that view can be found elsewhere, only the name, make that The Name, is changed.

Maybe no one nukes anyone. Maybe. That would be nice.

[mike777]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 07:18, said:

That's pretty much how wars always start - somebody makes a wrong play.

I would expand this a bit and say wars always start with war like actions.


Clearly Iran has taken war like actions against Israel and it appears that Israel has taken war like actions against Iran.

So far it appears both sides have turned the cheek and not declared all out war, yet. But clearly there have been more than enough provaction on either side if the political decision to go to full scale war is made.

Perhaps even more clear would be the numerous actions that the USA has taken in Pakistan over many years.


Given Israel only has a population of around 7 million It would only take a small device in a major city to cause many to leave Israel. In other words it may not take bombs bombs bombs just one small device.