| 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..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Oman has now delivered a formal proposal to the U.S. and its Western allies for shipping companies to pay voluntary navigational and environmental service fees in the Strait of Hormuz. It was the previous suggestion of fees that caused Team Trump to threaton to bomb Oman, its (former?) ally.
Essentialy we now have Iran playing bad cop (compulsory fees/tolls) and Oman playing good cop (voluntary fees) to get agreement for the new architecture into place (fees,tolls).
At the present time its still anything could happen, as nothing is finally agreed, (its just a MOU) but the leverage against Iran is now less, as Iran has now sold a lot of oil to China, after the US lifted its blockade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Oman has now delivered a formal proposal to the U.S. and its Western allies for shipping companies to pay voluntary navigational and environmental service fees in the Strait of Hormuz. |
If they are voluntary nobody is going to object.
| Essentialy we now have Iran playing bad cop (compulsory fees/tolls) and Oman playing good cop (voluntary fees) to get agreement for the new architecture into place (fees,tolls). |
You have intruded a bogus list. Agreement (by whom?), fees (no mention of compulsion or whether they will be real fees) and tolls.
| At the present time its still anything could happen, as nothing is finally agreed, (its just a MOU) but the leverage against Iran is now less, as Iran has now sold a lot of oil to China, after the US lifted its blockade. |
I cannot agree. A coupla bill in the coffers is a drop in the ocean for Iran, a lower oil price for the world -- now at near pre-war levels -- is a real plus for Trump. Iran knows it can't exist for long if the blocks go back on, the world knows it can manage if they do.
I agree though that Trump might panic if the Iranians string it out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The non-appearance of Iran's Supreme Leader at the week-long funeral ceremonies for his own father has increased speculation that he is either dead or incapacitated. Al-Jazeera vaguely pointed to 'security concerns' as the reason, though whether this was their speculation or because they had been given some kind of semi-official guidance was not clear.
However, since even the fiercest Americano-Israeli would blanche at bombing a million people in Martyrs' Square on the offchance of hitting the Supreme Leader, this has only fuelled speculation that he is either dead, incapacitated or very un-Iranially chicken-livered.
PS A dissident Iranian, plucked out by Channel 4 News to give her views on the numbers attending the Old Brute's funeral, commented, "We don't know how many of them were paid to attend." Which sums up the good sense of both news channel and Iranian dissidents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I am puzzled by Iran's present tactics.
All they had to do was sit tight for sixty days and they would have 'won' the war. After that, they could carry on stonewalling or not, depending what the Americans were offering, but essentially everything would peter out into the status quo ante. Their nuclear programme was still on course, their proxies were still in place, the regime had survived everything two local superpowers could throw at it. It was a clear -- if very expensive -- triumph.
Instead they started taking ineffective potshots at passing tankers in what the rest of the world considered to be a clear abrogation of the MoU. And in Omani home waters, not their own! They got a routine visitation from Yankee air assets for their troubles. Tit having been tatted, the sixty days resumed. So they did it again! And got a bit of Wrath of God this time.
The kindest interpretation is that this is all part of an internal power struggle between hardliners and ultra-hardliners in Tehran but it's got me baffled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
From Irans perspective (not the west) it has become clear, actually it was clear before the war, that Team Trump and Isreal, were going to keep hitting Iran at will, until they secured regime change.
The question for Iran was why go back to a staus quo, that invoved sanctions on them, and still then being bombed each year, (it was bombed the previous year) with their leadership continuing to be assassinated, or always under the threat of assassination. Why go back?
The western assumption was that they would go back, to the staus quo, much in the same way that victims of domestic violence always return, to the person abusing them. (That was the norm, we patch things up, they are naughty, we hit them if they misbehave etc)
The west now wants to go back to that model.
Is "survived again", "survived another pounding" really a victory for Iran?
Iran now wants something to guarentee this abusive behaviour by the US and Israel, will stop and...... will not happen again.
Thats the way they see it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | From Irans perspective (not the west) it has become clear, actually it was clear before the war, that Team Trump and Isreal, were going to keep hitting Iran at will, until they secured regime change. |
It may have been clear before the war but it must be obvious to the most purblind Iranian zealot that Team Trump has long given up this ambition.
| The question for Iran was why go back to a staus quo, that invoved sanctions on them, and still then being bombed each year, (it was bombed the previous year) with their leadership continuing to be assassinated, or always under the threat of assassination. Why go back? |
The question for me was why, when they had achieved all these things via the MoU, they decided to go back to war.
| The western assumption was that they would go back, to the staus quo, much in the same way that victims of domestic violence always return, to the person abusing them. (That was the norm, we patch things up, they are naughty, we hit them if they misbehave etc) |
The western assumption was that Trump had failed and it was a case of sauve qui peut.
| The west now wants to go back to that model. Is "survived again", "survived another pounding" really a victory for Iran? |
I don't think anyone regards the outcome as a victory for Iran precisely. It's not losing is a win of sorts.
| Iran now wants something to guarentee this abusive behaviour by the US and Israel, will stop and...... will not happen again. Thats the way they see it. |
If you are right, they're going a funny way about it. If they wanted my advice I would point out that if they wish to continue to conduct an aggressive foreign policy including over control of the Strait of Hormuz (and they have every right to do so) they are guaranteed pushback in the ordinary way.
But other than that they are sitting reasonably pretty whether they negotiate on the basis of the MoU or don't negotiate and allow the MoU to become the de facto peace settlement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
These attacks occurred because both parties have agreed a MoU, that agreed that the Strait of Hormuz would become open, but it left unclear what that concretely meant. For Iran it means that the Strait will be open subject to shipping comapanies informing the Persian Gulf Authority an agreed route they will be taking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_Strait_Authority
In practice that has meant Hormuz has been divided between what amounts to competing Iranian-controlled protected (Persian Gulf Authority) route and the U.S.controlled -protected shipping route along the Omani side.
Their remains no joint understanding on what "open" is. The Iranians point to the deal’s fifth paragraph that says Tehran “will make arrangements using its best efforts” to ensure safe passage, the MOU also says the future administration of the strait will be defined by Iran and Oman in consultation with the other Gulf states. (NOT the US)
The Iranians and Omanis meet today to start to formulate an agreement.
Wileys feeling is that Iran was laying the groundwork for these talks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | These attacks occurred because both parties have agreed a MoU, that agreed that the Strait of Hormuz would become open, but it left unclear what that concretely meant ... Their remains no joint understanding on what "open" is. The Iranians point to the deal’s fifth paragraph that says Tehran “will make arrangements using its best efforts” to ensure safe passage |
You are being disingenuous. Nobody could possibly interpret the wording viz "the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for sixty days" is compatible with firing missiles at them.
| the MOU also says the future administration of the strait will be defined by Iran and Oman in consultation with the other Gulf states. (NOT the US) |
Fine, but you are ignoring the fact that the agreement they signed was for the next sixty days and even Iranians can count up to sixty.
| The Iranians and Omanis meet today to start to formulate an agreement. |
Glad to hear it. Perhaps the Omanis will urge the Iranians to keep their missiles to their side of the Strait. As for passage of commercial shipping through the Strait, neither of these countries has anything much to formulate an agreement about. That's down to the UN, maritime law, world opinion, call it what you will.
| Wileys feeling is that Iran was laying the groundwork for these talks. |
Iran was prepared to be bombed to smithereens in order to gain a negotiating advantage over the Omanis? That wouldn't be my feeling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
