Scott Ritter says it is because Iran could possibly cut off oil sales and cripple US reserves.
Is there another way to deal with Iran?
2006-12-21 02:08:07 · 16 answers · asked by Reba K 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
When will the US stop doing this crap?
2006-12-21 03:02:32 · answer #1 · answered by Webber 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes - sanctions. Iran wants a conflict despreately. A war for the regieme would be a major ralling point for the population.
The language over Isreal and the focus on war by its leaders, is because Iran has had a huge birthrate - 5 kids per woman for decades, and its economy cannot absorb all these new workers. There are now millions and millions of young unemployed who are largely pro-western pinned under a harsh regeime and police state, creating a huge underlying tension in Irans society.
Even with high oil prices, the unemployment rate is 30%, there is little welfare, and this rate is projected to rise to 50% in a few years as more youth try ro enter the workforce without the jobs there.
If sanctions were applied to Iran, the corrupt regieme would be brought to the negociating table quickly, or the regieme would be overthrown or have to change. Thats why Iran is trying to gear up and press for a war.
2006-12-21 02:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by deepthroat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. The US maintains a constant presence in the Persian Gulf with the 5th Fleet. I do not believe that Iran is an important source of oil for the US. Most of our oil comes from the Western hemisphere.
Of course there are other, better, ways of dealing with Iran than threatening them. But don't count on the current administration to utilize anything but cowboy antics.
2006-12-21 02:12:56 · answer #3 · answered by Michael C 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If we are sending ships, it is to further put pressure on Iran, cutting off part of their imported goods. It beats bombing them and the end result may be that the government there will be overthrown from within. The citizens have shown their unhappiness with the current theocracy, maybe this is a turn for the better.
2006-12-21 02:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the Iraq War, Part Three!!! Here comes the end of the world!! Cowboy George and the Warmongers are at it again!! To hell with the rest of the world, they do what they want!! Constitution, Geneva Convention and the UN be damned!!
2006-12-21 02:33:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
how long has scott ritter been saying that
it's kind of hard for the US to sail thru the persian gulf to Iraq, and not enter iranian waters
the threat from iran is real. iran controls the hermez straits, and if they choose to close those straits by mining them, or sinking a few oil tankers there, there won't be any more oil moving out the persian gulf.
so for you dummies who still don't get it, it's not about how much oil iran produces, it's about all the oil the middle east produces, 90%+ of which passes past iran's doorstep before exiting the persian gulf and to world markets.
the oil needs to get to market before it can be consumed by someone willing to pay 60$/barrel for it. if that doesn't happen, the american banks and oil companies don't profit from the oil transactions either.
and if america can't secure middle east oil exports, then it can't secure it's own line of credit that is financed by those oil transactions.
it's not just iran, russia is arming iran. russia's not stupid either
bush is trying to take over the middle east as well as central asia and america will control almost all the oil. russia can't allow that. even europe's not happy about it
am i worired?
i was worried about the iranians. but seems bushco have bitten off more than they can chew and have their butts nailed to the floor in iraq
2006-12-21 02:10:51 · answer #6 · answered by assmouth p 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You mean like using diplomatic relations as we have been doing for the last 30+ years? No I'm not worried about our ships in those waters. And they aren't in Iran waters. They are in International waters.
2006-12-21 02:18:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"would Israel attack a US deliver to start up a conflict with Iran?" they do no longer would desire to. Missiles from Iran pose a sparkling and contemporary risk, so Israel can attack Iran if and whilst acceptable. If Iran had a nuclear bomb, it might make it much extra intense. that may not be able to be allowed. Iran would desire to quit its purpose of figuring out to purchase the nuclear bomb.
2016-12-15 05:32:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cheney said Iran was next no matter how you voted in November. We should all be worried about these men. They mean no good to us or to the region.
2006-12-21 02:17:45 · answer #9 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cripple US reserves? We have enough oil in Alaska that we haven't even tapped yet. They are trying to frighten us into backing off. I say full steam ahead!
2006-12-21 02:12:09 · answer #10 · answered by only p 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because Scott Ritter is SO CREDIBLE.
2006-12-21 02:10:39 · answer #11 · answered by C = JD 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋