This breaking news story says that David Miliband and Condoleeza Rice have issued new threats to Iran.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/World/mhgbmhkfauql/

For those who have been following the discussion on Iran's move away from trading oil in the dollar, the reference to the Iranian banks may resonate.

Quote :

“There is no doubt that there are further steps that the coalition of states that are working on this could take within the Security Council framework if Iran is not prepared to accept the really quite favourable and quite generous package that has been offered to it,” Ms Rice said.

Speaking to reporters accompanying her and Mr Miliband on a visit to California, Ms Rice said the Iranian economy was already suffering because of existing US, European and UN sanctions and said those would continue to expand without a change in behaviour by Iran’s leaders.

“They are already paying consequences and, of course, there are other possible courses available to us,” she said.

She added that the United States was looking at new steps to cut off more Iranian banks from the international financial system and could do so at any time over the nuclear issue as well as alleged terrorism financing.

“We will continue to designate entities as we find them trying to use the international financial system for ill-gotten gains,” Rice said. “We’re going to continue to do it and we are going to continue to do it aggressively because Iran should not be in a position of using the banking system to pass profits made from terrorism or proliferation.”

The comments came before the release of a new report, expected as early as tomorrow, from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that diplomats say will find Iran not co-operating with its experts on accounting for previously undeclared activity.

Mr Miliband said the report would buttress the arguments for those demanding that Tehran come clean.

“What’s clear is that the IAEA has reached a really important point with the Iranians where they are not getting answers on the outstanding issues ... that go to the heart of the issue of the confidence that the international community can have with the Iranian regime,” he said.

“Iran is not the victim of an international vendetta, it’s actually the author of its own misdeeds and they are being exposed by the work that IAEA officials are doing,” Mr Miliband added.

Ms Rice said such findings would be devastating for Iran’s claim to be fully and transparently co-operating with the IAEA.

“This would be a very serious matter,” she said.

Is this more table thumping, or is the US moving much closer to war against Iran ?

Only a matter of time Cactus. Pitraeus is back before the Senate in the next few days and since his promotion he will be answering on Iran

I don't think Britain will be going to war against Iran this time unless there is either UN or NATO sanction and I believe there will be neither.

There is certainly a declaration of financial war there.

Financial war I can see Britain engaged in, but I don't think Brown will bring them to physical war. He is so low in the polls already that he knows it would be pulling the trap door when he already has the noose around his neck.

they first started blocking these banks in the last few years so, they've already been at war for a few years, is financial war less worse then explosives war?


can one legitimately retaliate to financial war with bombs?

Britain might not directly attack Iran but it might be sucked in if Iran were to invade the Basra area.

Next favourable window for major military operations kicks in around 1 September and will last till about 1st November.

Breakingnews.ie says today that Bush is meeting the EU to push for sanctions against the Iranian banks. Is this in anyway connected with the off-dollar oil trading I wonder? The prospect of a partial withdrawal from Iraq only to attack Iran is a nightmare scenario.

Probably has more to do with the fact that the Iranians have just pulled most of their money from European banks and lodged it in Asian banks. Nothing like a bit of self interest to push for a drive for sanctions on totally "unrelated - wink wink, nod nod" issues.

Hermes wrote:

Probably has more to do with the fact that the Iranians have just pulled most of their money from European banks and lodged it in Asian banks. Nothing like a bit of self interest to push for a drive for sanctions on totally "unrelated - wink wink, nod nod" issues.

Have you got a link for that, Hermes?

Sorry 'bout that, here's a link

Worth quoting:

Quote :

Iran has withdrawn a huge sum of its foreign exchange reserves from European banks and has deposited some of it into Asian banks.

"Based on a decision made by a government working group, Iran has switched to 'genuine' assets like gold and shares... We have decreased our foreign currency holdings in international banks," said Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs, Mohsen Talaei.

"A portion of Iran's foreign exchange reserves, however, was moved to Asian banks," he added in his interview with Borna news agency published on Monday.

According to the official, Iran keeps only the minimum currency it needs for its accounts to remain open in Europe but manages its accounts in Asia in a way that will allow trade transactions to continue.

Iran has abandoned the dollar in oil trading in favor of the yen, citing the weakness of US currency for its decision.

Iran has been selling nearly 700,000 barrels of crude oil to Japan on a daily basis in yen since mid-2007, Talaei concluded.

The US has imposed sanctions against Iranian banks and continues to persuade countries to halt their business relations with Tehran.

While some are of the opinion that sanctions have crippled Iran's economy, the refusal of financial institutions in Russia, China and Middle Eastern countries have proven such efforts futile.

Iran's annual international trade has reportedly exceeded 65 billion dollars and some foreign banks that had frozen Iranian assets have released the country's holdings.

Two things I can think of that might make a country switch from its currency into hard assets - one is 25% inflation, and the other is the possibility of war.

A third might be the collapse of a currency. Specifically the dollar. Interesting to note too is that the US is up to its neck in debt to the Chinese, who have in the past revalued the dollar and who could do so again at a moment's notice.

Tis not looking good on the peace front is it?

Another interesting point to make and re-examine at this juncture is the idea put forward and circulated that the US is against the Lisbon Treaty. Some fairly good arguments put forward to support this - Ibis had some excellent reasons - but I still think that if the Yanks had wanted a 'no' vote, they'd have given Bertie his orders long ago. Methinks the US opposition to the treaty is a bit of reverse psychology designed to play on perceived anti-American thinking. Much more efficient for the Yanks to tell the EU what to do rather than to have to go around each individual member with the begging-bowl.

The question that needs asking and in spite of the advent of the euro, is what happens if the dollar goes belly-up - what happens in Europe?

I don't think the US view of the EU is unanimous. There are some neo conservatives that view a strong Europe as a threat. There are others that view a weak Europe as right royal pain in the ass that won't punch its military weight in supporting US ventures in the Balkans and the Middle East. The arguments are out there in print.

What UN resolutions ?

Britain and Europe to tighten economic sanctions on Iran

Quote :

While Iran has not yet formally responded to the new proposal, Brown announced that Europe would move to restrict European transactions of the Iranian bank, Bank Melli, immediately. He also said that if Iran continued to defy existing United Nations resolutions calling for it to halt uranium enrichment, European leaders would begin considering sanctions on investments in Iran's oil and natural gas industries.

Reported in the Guardian (and Examiner too)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/17/iraq.foreignpolicy

The EU has annouced economic sanctions against Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/06/2008623104621895419.html

Quote :

Washington has been waiting for Europe to take such measures on Iran for months and the issue was a key one on a recent European tour by George Bush, the US president.

Israel, according to Al Jazeera today, held a military exercise for an air attack on Iran last week.
News Americas

Israel 'held Iran attack exercise'

Olmert has not ruled out military action
over Iran's nuclear programme [AFP]

An Israeli military exercise held this month was most likely a rehearsal for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, US defence department officials have said.

Israel sent warplanes and other aircraft to the eastern Mediterranean earlier this month for "large scale" exercises, a Pentagon official told the Associated Press news agency.

A Pentagon official also told the New York Times newspaper on Friday that the exercises were conducted to both practise a prospective Iran strike and also to show the US and Europe that Israel was prepared to act militarily should diplomacy fail.

Israel itself has neither confirmed nor denied the exercises, with an Israeli military spokesman saying only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".

Israel and Western powers have accused Iran of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, however Iran says its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes.

Sean McCormack, the US state department spokesman, did not comment on the claims but said that Washington supported "a peaceful, diplomatic resolution" to the crisis.

However, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, said that if a military strike were carried out on Iran he would resign, earning that such an act would turn the region "into a fireball".

"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television.

"A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball."

Quote :

'Significant' exercise

The New York Times quoted defence department officials as saying that more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s took part in the exercises, flying more than 1,450 kilometres - roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility

Israel also claimed today to have bombed a Syrian nuclear facility at construction stage (this is denied by Syria).

Is this what is meant by EU "energy security".

I feel for the people who live in Iran. If you had any money you would leave.

To threaten is a lot different to the actuality. Surely they would not be so stupid as to go to war with Iran? Large country, sizeable population. High risk for what gain exactly?

What seems to be being suggested is a U.S. backed Israeli air attack. It would not be the first time by any means. I would imagine that oil prices would be hit again, but that would not do any harm to governments and individuals who are owners of oil resources.

Suppose not that much the Iranians can do in retaliation apart from funding mischief in neighbouring countries.

Politically internally will play well for the fundamentalists.

There are times when I think they have a desire to be attacked some of the pronouncements beggar belief.

So fundamentalists and oil barons are in a win win situation.

Squire wrote:

Suppose not that much the Iranians can do in retaliation apart from funding mischief in neighbouring countries.

Politically internally will play well for the fundamentalists.

There are times when I think they have a desire to be attacked some of the pronouncements beggar belief.

So fundamentalists and oil barons are in a win win situation.

Perhaps that is why some of them have such very close relationships.

EU sanctions illegal, says Iran

Plenty of links on BBC to this story as it is unfolding. The Security Council was unanimous in advocating sanctions ... Is that it for Iran now ? They either comply with the rules or get bombed ?

Quote :

Fuel guarantee

Earlier this month, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany renewed a package of incentives to Iran to try to encourage the opening of negotiations.

Under the package, talks can start about a long-term agreement on Iran's nuclear programme if it halts uranium enrichment.

Also on offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them.

It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.

Auditor #9 wrote:

EU sanctions illegal, says Iran

Plenty of links on BBC to this story as it is unfolding. The Security Council was unanimous in advocating sanctions ... Is that it for Iran now ? They either comply with the rules or get bombed ?

Quote :

Fuel guarantee

Earlier this month, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany renewed a package of incentives to Iran to try to encourage the opening of negotiations.

Under the package, talks can start about a long-term agreement on Iran's nuclear programme if it halts uranium enrichment.

Also on offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them.

It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.

That's presumably the carrot, while this is the stick.

Quote :

By Toby Harnden in Washington

Tuesday June 24 2008



John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the US presidential election in November, but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview.
"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.
Mr Bolton, who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he saw as a lack of will by the Bush administration to contemplate military strikes.
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he said. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration, on January 20, 2009.
"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding . . . they're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgment is that they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."
But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or John McCain, his Republican opponent, to be installed in the White House could preclude military action for the next four years, or at least delay it.
"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences, given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
"With McCain, they might still be looking at a delay. Given time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later."
Meanwhile, America's proposed missile shield in Europe is now unlikely to be operational before Iran acquires intercontinental weapons.
The latest setback came after US defence department experts refused to certify the interceptor missiles because they had not been fully tested.. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

- Toby Harnden in Washington

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/israel-will-attack-iran-after-us-election-1419952.html

I suppose the good news is that if they were serious it wouldn't be in the newspapers.