| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
The US has developed a cunning strategy ie release Iranians santioned funds back to Iran, on condition that the Iranians, then buy from American farmers, to feed the hard done by Iranian population.
Iran is in favour, so its a win/win.
This looks suspciously like the type of creative workaround adopted by the US after they withdrew, from Afghanistan, that enables them to take a imaginary "tough stand" to placate hawks (much criticised by liberals) whilst in fact continuing to pay off (fly in dollars) to the Taliban, all under the guise of humanitarian aid....
https://www.propublica.org/article/united-nations-cash-afghanistan-following-taliban-takeover
As I said a win, win, just dont expect all of it (or half of it) to reach those most in need..........
Money is fungible so it will as always prove impossible to track who got what and what that got spent on.
In 5 years time we will discover that the IRGC, who will be implementing the Iranian side of the deal, have turned out to be even less reliable than the much derided UN and NGOs in their distribution of Humanitarian Aid....
Still its a good start......both sides want to do good, and help the other......
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You didn't mention one overriding consideration. The US (and other western banks) who hold the world's hard currency reserves -- because otherwise the money markets wouldn't believe they are what countries say they are and nor would they be earning interest -- cannot allow it to be said they are not just 'holding them in trust' but are prepared to lay hands on them at the first excuse.
Otherwise foreigners wouldn't trust western banks further than they could throw them and certainly wouldn't trust them with their national reserves. Hence when the banks do, they say all sorts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You didn't mention one overriding consideration. The US (and other western banks) who hold the world's hard currency reserves |
The Chinese, hold most foreign currency reserves by far, mainly dollars.
The Chinese have assessed this as high risk, as they fear sanctions (removal from SWIFT) stopping them trading with these dollars. To reduce this risk, they are now aiming to reduce dollar dependence, and boost encourage trade in Yuan/Renminbi.
We will see this play out during the Iran US negotiations.
If its going Irans way, the US Petrodollar dominance will decline in the Gulf, to be replaced by the Petroyuan. China has already annouced this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
That's certainly where my money's going. The Chinese don't understand about overdrafts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A fascinating and possibly instructive tit-for-tat has just taken place in the Strait of Hormuz. It consisted of:
1. The Iranians firing a drone at a freighter just off the Omani coast for 'ignoring regulations'. There was some superficial damage to the freighter's superstructure but not sufficient to prevent it continuing its voyage into the Indian Ocean.
2. President Trump issued a post expressing the mildest of objections to this 'breach of the MoI'. Followed the next morning by American airstrikes on three Iranian drone sites.
There must be, with both events, the suspicion of over-zealousness on the part of subordinates. Likelier in the first case than the second. But the whole episode -- assuming it's over -- is quite heartening in that it appears to show both sides are sufficiently confident the peace will hold they can afford to go in for a bit of post-agreement jockeying.
If so, the Iranians must surely know by now they are never going to be allowed to control the Strait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Prior to the war you had approximately 125 ships transiting daily as an International Waterway.
Under the MOU this had risen from the odd few to 25, virtually all in accordance with prior arrangemnts permission with the IRGC using Iranian waters. Although a few were using the Omani side. For example of the first 20 out (that we know about) 16 used Iranian waters.
A Cargo ship has now been hit after trying to use the Omani side.
If we go back after the tit for tat, to 25 ships using the Iranian side, it really demonstrates that Iran is going to get its way ie the Persian Gulf Authority etc....
If we see a switch in usage to ships coming out the Omani side withoout IRGC interfrence, then we know that Iran has accepted they will not keep control of the Strait going foward.
As of this morning it was considered to dangerous to transit for the trapped ships......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Prior to the war you had approximately 125 ships transiting daily as an International Waterway. |
OK
| Under the MOU this had risen from the odd few to 25, virtually all in accordance with prior arrangemnts permission with the IRGC using Iranian waters. Although a few were using the Omani side. For example of the first 20 out (that we know about) 16 used Iranian waters. |
OK
| A Cargo ship has now been hit after traying to use the Omani side. |
As the Veep said, "They had only to pick up the phone if they thought someone was out of line." It was, in my view, an action that went beyond the foolish or the precipitate. It was -- or might be considered to be -- a declaration of war on the world. (Never mind, a clear transgression of the MOU.) I am assuming it was an IRGC initiative or, at the very most, a state-level decision that could be blamed on the IRGC. It was either plumb crazy or deeply strategical.
| If we go back after the tit for tat, to 25 ships using the Iranian side, it really demonstrates that Iran is going to get its way ie the Persian Gulf Authority etc.... |
As I understand it, both main channels are on the Iranian side. The 'out' channel, i.e. the one the freighter should have been using, is on the Iranian side of the 'in' channel. This was no 'straying from his lane', the freighter's captain knew what he was doing and presumably thought it was relatively risk-free. A conclusion I think to be reasonable given the MOU.
| If we see a switch in usage to ships coming out the Omani side withoout IRGC interfrence, then we know that Iran has accepted they will not keep control of the Strait going foward. |
They would be jumping the gun if they did. The Omani side might, for instance, have been swept clear of mines by the Americans. Or it might be that the freighter's captain figured it would be circumspect to keep as far away from Iranians as possible. I'm not even ruling out the whole thing was a bit of a try-on by the Americans.
| As of this morning it was considered to dangerous to transit for the trapped ships...... |
This is the kernel. If you've already taken the hit of ten weeks' idleness, it would be foolish not to wait another few days (or even weeks) if there is any risk when getting out. But contrariwise, if you've been idle for ten weeks you are positively thirsting to get back to earning money, if the risk is small..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
