IRAN BOMBSHELL - TEAM OBAMA NEGOTIATING DEAL THAT CAN'T BE VERIFIED

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Note to the above: under Obama's watch, Iran GDP went from a meager 192 billion to 528 billion dollars....then what happened?

The GOP Congress put sanctions in place and the Iran economy cratered. Another 2 years and the Iranian people will have had enough of the Mullahs....unless Obama rides to their rescue, which our muslim president is determined to do.

If the price of oil Is hurting me, it's killing Iran coupled with what could be resolute and strong sanctions

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You are a complete idiot. The entire GDP of Iran in 2014 was only $369 billion. So how the fuck could their budget be over $300 billion? Unless they are racking up huge debt. The very ticking time bomb I describe.

Iran can't keep their game of regional bullying up much longer. Especially if Obama keeps the sanctions in=place....wait, wait...Obama has already lifted some of the sanctions. You think he is trying to help them out? I do. He is a fucking traitor to American principles.

This begs the question, why are you such a dumbshit TimmyTard?

Take a gander at the crash in the Iran economy since sanctions....learn something from my posts you idiot, then thank me.




http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp

You call $69 million huge debt? You must shit your pants when you see ours. And actually, he wasn't wrong, as the pasted portion and link I provide will show you below. Learn something from your own posts, namely that you don't know everything.

"According to the figures released by the government, the overall state budget for the next Iranian year will be 8,379 trillion rials ($294 billion at the emerging official exchange rate of 28,500 rials to the US dollar)"

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...-economy.html#

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Note to the above: under Obama's watch, Iran GDP went from a meager 192 billion to 528 billion dollars....then what happened?

The GOP Congress put sanctions in place and the Iran economy cratered. Another 2 years and the Iranian people will have had enough of the Mullahs....unless Obama rides to their rescue, which our muslim president is determined to do.

FACT JACK.

Btw, why are you such a loser?

FACT JACK? Not hardly.

"The idea of reducing Iranian gasoline imports as a means of pressuring Iran was examined during the administration of President George W. Bush but ultimately not taken up. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then candidate Barack Obama brought up the idea in a presidential debate"

Hmmmm...

And these executive orders you love to mention. He issued three of those that dealt with sanctions against Iran. But I thought he loved them?

"President Obama issued Executive Order 13553 in September 2010 and Executive Order 13574 in May 2011, and Executive Order 13590 in November 2011"

Seems like the first iteration of the bill to sanction was introduced by Democrats, in both houses. Hmmm... I guess the republitards didn't want to make big oil daddy mad, but it was the GOP congress, right?


"the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA) was introduced in the United States Senate on April 28, 2009 as S. 908 by Senator Evan Bayh and has since garnered 77 cosponsors. It was then introduced as H.R. 2194 in the United States House of Representatives on April 30 by Representative Howard L. Berman and attracted 343 cosponsors."

And this is just a tidbit thrown in for good measure. what have the sanctions ACTUALLY done?

"According to an Iranian journalist, the effects of sanctions in Iran include expensive basic goods and an aging and increasingly unsafe aircraft fleet. "According to reports from Iranian news agencies, 17 planes have crashed over the past 25 years, killing approximately 1,500 people."


But Obama, he's not doing anything, right?

"In November 2011, Washington targeted Iran's oil revenue by threatening to cut off from the US financial system foreign financial institutions that conducted oil transactions with Iran's central bank. This prompted several countries to reduce their imports of Iranian oil, including China, Japan, India, South Korea, Turkey, South Africa and Singapore. The UK and Canada also ordered financial institutions to stop doing business with their Iranian counterparts."

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You are a complete idiot. The entire GDP of Iran in 2014 was only $369 billion. So how the fuck could their budget be over $300 billion? Unless they are racking up huge debt. The very ticking time bomb I describe.

Iran can't keep their game of regional bullying up much longer. Especially if Obama keeps the sanctions in=place....wait, wait...Obama has already lifted some of the sanctions. You think he is trying to help them out? I do. He is a fucking traitor to American principles.

This begs the question, why are you such a dumbshit TimmyTard?

Take a gander at the crash in the Iran economy since sanctions....learn something from my posts you idiot, then thank me.




http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp

Sorry, but you're the fucking idiot...as usual.

Iran's budget tackles falling oil prices

Author: Bijan KhajehpourPosted December 10, 2014

On Dec. 7, President Hassan Rouhani presented his budget bill for the Iranian year 1394 (which begins March 21, 2015) to the Iranian parliament. The budget bill was anticipated by various stakeholders, especially considering low and falling oil prices as well as the wait-and-see mode in the nuclear negotiations that have induced massive uncertainties into Iran’s economic outlook. Summary⎙ Print Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's $294 billion budget for 2015 shows his government is willing to cut costs to compensate for falling oil prices, but makes no allowance for the absence of a nuclear deal with the West.
AuthorBijan KhajehpourPosted December 10, 2014


According to the figures released by the government, the overall state budget for the next Iranian year will be 8,379 trillion rials ($294 billion at the emerging official exchange rate of 28,500 rials to the US dollar),


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3VdsZQJ1U

[IIFFOFRDB]

David Burge @iowahawkblog · 5h 5 hours ago

Current status

[timpage]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Not everyone knew the details of this meeting either ....



... particularly Poland and Hungry.

70 year old events relevant for no apparent reason?

Fill us in dumbass.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by timpage

70 year old events relevant for no apparent reason?

Fill us in dumbass.

The Patriarchal Idiot seems to love his irrelevant pics. He damn sure posts enough of 'em.

No one (and I mean no one) does irrelevance better than LLIdiot!

[CuteOldGuy]

Now the Saudis want the Bomb. That will be a bigger problem than Iran.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

It would? Let's play that out to it's logical conclusion. Let's go ahead and turn those sanction screws tighter, as you prescribe. They will have no oversight now. No inspectors or monitoring of ANY kind. The russians will continue to give them nuclear materials because they take any chance they can to poke us in the eye. They continue to expand their program. And instead of us having at least a clue of what is going on, we are on the outside looking in. How does that put us in any better position than we are in now? IF they devise a bomb and test it, that will be the first we'll know of it. Sounds AWESOME.

Ok, you've made this point (about the Russians wanting to poke us in the eye) multiple times. What you fail to mention is:

1) The Russians are supposed to play a key role in monitoring and enforcing any negotiated deal, especially with regard to the Bushehr nuclear power plant. How is that supposed to work if (as you say) they never miss a chance to poke us in the eye? The "can't trust the Russians" argument cuts both ways.

2) Russia has a strong economic interest in scuttling a deal anyway. The last thing they want to see right now is up to 1 million barrels a day in new Iranian oil flooding the world market, worsening the current glut and sending crude prices spiraling even lower.


http://www.the-american-interest.com...d-sink-russia/

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, you've made this point (about the Russians wanting to poke us in the eye) multiple times. What you fail to mention is:

1) The Russians are supposed to play a key role in monitoring and enforcing any negotiated deal, especially with regard to the Bushehr nuclear power plant. How is that supposed to work if (as you say) they never miss a chance to poke us in the eye? The "can't trust the Russians" argument cuts both ways.

2) Russia has a strong economic interest in scuttling a deal anyway. The last thing they want to see right now is up to 1 million barrels a day in new Iranian oil flooding the world market, worsening the current glut and sending crude prices spiraling even lower.


http://www.the-american-interest.com...d-sink-russia/

Did you ever stop to think we would like to fuck Russia in the ass by flooding the market with Iranian oil? Oil that Iran has just sitting there waiting to be sold to someone, anyone. And while 1 million barrels a day might be a high estimate, even at that rate, they only have 35 million or so sitting around. As for Russia, they're always a tricky cocksucker. In the end I don't think it matters. We don't trust them so I'm sure whatever they're supposed to monitor, we will be looking over their shoulder.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/25/i...rels-of-crude/

P.S. I appreciate the lack of 'faggots' in this exchange.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Did you ever stop to think we would like to fuck Russia in the ass by flooding the market with Iranian oil? Oil that Iran has just sitting there waiting to be sold to someone, anyone. And while 1 million barrels a day might be a high estimate, even at that rate, they only have 35 million or so sitting around. As for Russia, they're always a tricky cocksucker. In the end I don't think it matters. We don't trust them so I'm sure whatever they're supposed to monitor, we will be looking over their shoulder.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/25/i...rels-of-crude/

P.S. I appreciate the lack of 'faggots' in this exchange.

If our main goal was to "fuck Russia in the ass by flooding the market with Iranian oil" we can do that anyway by simply lifting the Iran sanctions without a deal. So it's ludicrous for you to use that as a selling point for a flawed deal.

And your faith in our ability to monitor everything (including monitoring the monitors) is naively inflated, whether it's the taliban dream team or an Iranian nuclear deal. The fact that we can't even keep track of their oil tanker fleet does not augur well for our monitoring skills:



Obama’s Iran Policy Is Lost at Sea

How can the U.S. hope to keep tabs on Tehran’s nuclear program when we can’t even track its oil tankers?

By Claudia Rosett
March 26, 2015 7:03 p.m. ET

American negotiators and their cohorts are trying to close a deal that would let Iran keep its nuclear program, subject to intricate conditions of monitoring and enforcement. Yet how is a deal like that supposed to be verified? The Obama administration can’t even keep up with the Iran-linked oil tankers on the U.S. blacklist.

Currently, there are at least 55 of these tankers the Treasury Department says are under U.S. sanctions. These are large ships, major links in the oil chain that sustains the Tehran regime, many of them calling at ports from Turkey to China. They are easier to spot and track than, say, smuggled nuclear parts (which, in a pinch, they could potentially squeeze on board).

But Iran has engaged for years in what Treasury called “deceptive practices” to dodge sanctions. These include trying to mask the identities, and sometimes the smuggling activities, of its blacklisted ships by renaming them, reflagging them to other countries, veiling their ownership behind front companies, presenting false documents, and engaging in illicit ship-to-ship oil transfers.

The result, according to information on Treasury’s publicly available blacklist, is that the U.S. government cannot establish under what flag at least 31 of these tankers are doing business. They can be identified by their unique seven-digit hull numbers, or IMO numbers, issued for the life of each ship. But a ship’s flag also is a vital identifier, one under which it signals its position, carries cargo and presents credentials to visit ports, buy insurance and pay fees. On Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals list, which helps ensure global compliance with U.S. sanctions, in the category of “flag” for these 31 tankers Treasury states: “none identified.”

Under terms of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action that frames the Iran nuclear talks, the U.S. does grant temporary waivers for a handful of places to buy Iranian oil in limited quantities: Turkey, India, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. This means that some activities of these tankers may be legitimate. Other activities—say, unloading oil en route to customers not on the waiver list—could potentially involve violations of sanctions and mean penalties for anyone who does business with them, such as being cut off from trade or financial transactions with the U.S.

Typical of Iran’s shrouded tanker fleet is the blacklisted ship called the Sinopa, previously named the Superior and before that, the Daisy. Since early 2014, the Sinopa has visited India and China. It has also made multiple trips from Iran to Turkey, via the Suez Canal, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence shipping database, the main source of ship-tracking data for this article. Judging by Treasury’s blacklist, the Sinopa—which Treasury still describes under her previous name of Superior—has done all of this under no identified flag. Why not—what is she hiding? The Treasury refuses to comment on specific cases.

Most of these phantom-flagged tankers are linked to Iran’s main tanker enterprise, NITC, formerly called the National Iranian Tanker Company. About seven or eight years ago, NITC tried to escape tightening U.S. sanctions by reflagging more than three dozen of its tankers to Cyprus and Malta. In 2012 the U.S. and European Union imposed sanctions on NITC, which forced the Iran-linked ships off EU registries.

The tankers quickly reflagged to the more obscure registries of Tanzania and the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. They were also renamed: For instance, the Hirmand, flagged to Cyprus, became the Honesty, flagged to Tuvalu. They had new registered owners, too—an array of front companies in places ranging from the Seychelles to Tanzania to a post office box in Tuvalu.

In August 2012, Sens. Robert Menendez and Mark Kirk wrote a bipartisan letter to President Obama, urging him to blacklist the shipping registries of Tuvalu and Tanzania for “their participation in Iranian attempts to conceal the ownership and control of vessels owned or controlled by the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC).” Tuvalu swiftly deregistered the Iranian tankers. Although Tanzanian authorities promised to do the same, the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania protested that the host government seemed to be registering many of the Iranian tankers deflagged by Tuvalu.

At the end of 2012, Tanzanian authorities denied that any blacklisted Iranian ships were still registered under their flag. But dozens of Iranian ships were using their onboard Maritime Mobile Service Identity systems to signal as Tanzanian—which is how most of the Iranian tankers currently sailing under no identified flag are signaling to this day.

As for the blacklisted tankers that are registered under known flags, Lloyd’s reports that there are now nine flagged to Tanzania, 10 flagged to the landlocked nation of Mongolia, one registered to the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, two to Malta, and one tanker that is sailing under the Iranian flag.

The blacklisted tanker flagged to Iran is called the Amin 2. Treasury describes it as linked to the major Iranian shipping enterprise, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL)—which is under sanctions by the U.S. for “providing logistical services” to Iran’s military. Although Treasury’s public details for the Amin 2 are two years out of date, more-current details can be found on Lloyd’s and in a June 2014 report by the United Nations Panel of Experts on Iran sanctions.

For almost three years, the Amin 2 has been shuttling between Iran and Syria via the Suez Canal. Syria is not on the U.S. list of countries with waivers to buy oil from Iran. Syria is under U.S. sanctions. But the Amin 2 has continued its activity. This is so even though Treasury says the ship is linked to IRISL—and Treasury has blacklisted an Egyptian company for acting as IRISL’s agent in Egypt in relation to weapons of mass destruction, or what Treasury calls “WMD-related actions.”

A Treasury press release about the Egyptian company, called Nefertiti, says it also provides services to Iran’s NITC. According to shipping data on Lloyd’s, since November the Amin 2 has made two round trips from Iran to Syria, calling most recently on March 5 at the Syrian port of Banias.

Under the emerging Iran nuclear deal, especially if sanctions are lifted, how exactly do the U.S. and its partners propose to keep a tighter leash on Iran’s nuclear program than they are now keeping on its shipping traffic?

Ms. Rosett is journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and heads its Investigative Reporting Project.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If our main goal was to "fuck Russia in the ass by flooding the market with Iranian oil" we can do that anyway by simply lifting the Iran sanctions without a deal. So it's ludicrous for you to use that as a selling point for a flawed deal.

And your faith in our ability to monitor everything (including monitoring the monitors) is naively inflated, whether it's the taliban dream team or an Iranian nuclear deal. The fact that we can't even keep track of their oil tanker fleet does not augur well for our monitoring skills:



Obama’s Iran Policy Is Lost at Sea

How can the U.S. hope to keep tabs on Tehran’s nuclear program when we can’t even track its oil tankers?

By Claudia Rosett
March 26, 2015 7:03 p.m. ET

American negotiators and their cohorts are trying to close a deal that would let Iran keep its nuclear program, subject to intricate conditions of monitoring and enforcement. Yet how is a deal like that supposed to be verified? The Obama administration can’t even keep up with the Iran-linked oil tankers on the U.S. blacklist.

Currently, there are at least 55 of these tankers the Treasury Department says are under U.S. sanctions. These are large ships, major links in the oil chain that sustains the Tehran regime, many of them calling at ports from Turkey to China. They are easier to spot and track than, say, smuggled nuclear parts (which, in a pinch, they could potentially squeeze on board).

But Iran has engaged for years in what Treasury called “deceptive practices” to dodge sanctions. These include trying to mask the identities, and sometimes the smuggling activities, of its blacklisted ships by renaming them, reflagging them to other countries, veiling their ownership behind front companies, presenting false documents, and engaging in illicit ship-to-ship oil transfers.

The result, according to information on Treasury’s publicly available blacklist, is that the U.S. government cannot establish under what flag at least 31 of these tankers are doing business. They can be identified by their unique seven-digit hull numbers, or IMO numbers, issued for the life of each ship. But a ship’s flag also is a vital identifier, one under which it signals its position, carries cargo and presents credentials to visit ports, buy insurance and pay fees. On Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals list, which helps ensure global compliance with U.S. sanctions, in the category of “flag” for these 31 tankers Treasury states: “none identified.”

Under terms of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action that frames the Iran nuclear talks, the U.S. does grant temporary waivers for a handful of places to buy Iranian oil in limited quantities: Turkey, India, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. This means that some activities of these tankers may be legitimate. Other activities—say, unloading oil en route to customers not on the waiver list—could potentially involve violations of sanctions and mean penalties for anyone who does business with them, such as being cut off from trade or financial transactions with the U.S.

Typical of Iran’s shrouded tanker fleet is the blacklisted ship called the Sinopa, previously named the Superior and before that, the Daisy. Since early 2014, the Sinopa has visited India and China. It has also made multiple trips from Iran to Turkey, via the Suez Canal, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence shipping database, the main source of ship-tracking data for this article. Judging by Treasury’s blacklist, the Sinopa—which Treasury still describes under her previous name of Superior—has done all of this under no identified flag. Why not—what is she hiding? The Treasury refuses to comment on specific cases.

Most of these phantom-flagged tankers are linked to Iran’s main tanker enterprise, NITC, formerly called the National Iranian Tanker Company. About seven or eight years ago, NITC tried to escape tightening U.S. sanctions by reflagging more than three dozen of its tankers to Cyprus and Malta. In 2012 the U.S. and European Union imposed sanctions on NITC, which forced the Iran-linked ships off EU registries.

The tankers quickly reflagged to the more obscure registries of Tanzania and the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. They were also renamed: For instance, the Hirmand, flagged to Cyprus, became the Honesty, flagged to Tuvalu. They had new registered owners, too—an array of front companies in places ranging from the Seychelles to Tanzania to a post office box in Tuvalu.

In August 2012, Sens. Robert Menendez and Mark Kirk wrote a bipartisan letter to President Obama, urging him to blacklist the shipping registries of Tuvalu and Tanzania for “their participation in Iranian attempts to conceal the ownership and control of vessels owned or controlled by the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC).” Tuvalu swiftly deregistered the Iranian tankers. Although Tanzanian authorities promised to do the same, the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania protested that the host government seemed to be registering many of the Iranian tankers deflagged by Tuvalu.

At the end of 2012, Tanzanian authorities denied that any blacklisted Iranian ships were still registered under their flag. But dozens of Iranian ships were using their onboard Maritime Mobile Service Identity systems to signal as Tanzanian—which is how most of the Iranian tankers currently sailing under no identified flag are signaling to this day.

As for the blacklisted tankers that are registered under known flags, Lloyd’s reports that there are now nine flagged to Tanzania, 10 flagged to the landlocked nation of Mongolia, one registered to the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, two to Malta, and one tanker that is sailing under the Iranian flag.

The blacklisted tanker flagged to Iran is called the Amin 2. Treasury describes it as linked to the major Iranian shipping enterprise, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL)—which is under sanctions by the U.S. for “providing logistical services” to Iran’s military. Although Treasury’s public details for the Amin 2 are two years out of date, more-current details can be found on Lloyd’s and in a June 2014 report by the United Nations Panel of Experts on Iran sanctions.

For almost three years, the Amin 2 has been shuttling between Iran and Syria via the Suez Canal. Syria is not on the U.S. list of countries with waivers to buy oil from Iran. Syria is under U.S. sanctions. But the Amin 2 has continued its activity. This is so even though Treasury says the ship is linked to IRISL—and Treasury has blacklisted an Egyptian company for acting as IRISL’s agent in Egypt in relation to weapons of mass destruction, or what Treasury calls “WMD-related actions.”

A Treasury press release about the Egyptian company, called Nefertiti, says it also provides services to Iran’s NITC. According to shipping data on Lloyd’s, since November the Amin 2 has made two round trips from Iran to Syria, calling most recently on March 5 at the Syrian port of Banias.

Under the emerging Iran nuclear deal, especially if sanctions are lifted, how exactly do the U.S. and its partners propose to keep a tighter leash on Iran’s nuclear program than they are now keeping on its shipping traffic?

Ms. Rosett is journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and heads its Investigative Reporting Project.

Why would we lift the sanctions without a deal? That doesn't make sense geopolitically. We can't be seen giving without getting, even if it's window dressing. As for how we will keep track of them. I don't know. As far as I know, Iran doesn't move. It's still in the same place it's always been. What's funny is that you and I are arguing about this like it actually matters. We have no bearing on the outcome of anything. It's just mental masturbation.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Why would we lift the sanctions without a deal? That doesn't make sense geopolitically. We can't be seen giving without getting, even if it's window dressing.

Are you being disingenuous or stupid? Of course we don't lift the sanctions without a much stricter deal than what is currently being contemplated. Of course we don't want to give away the store for nothing. The goal is to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Period. It's hard enough for Congress and the American public to buck up Obama/Kerry without you encouraging them to take any deal they can get because at least it “will fuck russia in the ass”.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

What's funny is that you and I are arguing about this like it actually matters. We have no bearing on the outcome of anything. It's just mental masturbation.

It's not mental masturbation, you mental midget. Public opinion has a huge bearing on the outcome and it matters profoundly for the future security of the planet whether Iran gets a nuke. Wake up. Don't you care about your hero Obama's legacy? Think about what it will look like if he goes down in history as the POTUS who legitimized an Iranian nuclear program leading to a totally foreseeable future catastrophe. Is that what you want, fool?

.

[i'va biggen]

Wonder what would happen if no deal is struck, congress imposes more sanctions Iran goes nuclear. Who can we blame then?

[Whirlaway]

I don't think he does...

Iran's GDP is about $369 billion and their state operating budget (per your number) is $294 billion or 80% of GDP.....functioning economies rarely exceed 60% (think Greece), so 80% of GDP for multiple years is a recipe for economic disaster!

By comparison the US federal spending ratio is about 22% of GDP.

FACT JACK !


What do you think happens if the sanctions continue ?

Answer: Economic collapse of the Mullah state of Iran. You know, the one's who called for our death and destruction and whom Obama is trying to bail out with his deal.

Originally Posted by timpage

Sorry, but you're the fucking idiot...as usual.

Iran's budget tackles falling oil prices

Author: Bijan KhajehpourPosted December 10, 2014

On Dec. 7, President Hassan Rouhani presented his budget bill for the Iranian year 1394 (which begins March 21, 2015) to the Iranian parliament. The budget bill was anticipated by various stakeholders, especially considering low and falling oil prices as well as the wait-and-see mode in the nuclear negotiations that have induced massive uncertainties into Iran’s economic outlook. Summary⎙ Print Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's $294 billion budget for 2015 shows his government is willing to cut costs to compensate for falling oil prices, but makes no allowance for the absence of a nuclear deal with the West.
AuthorBijan KhajehpourPosted December 10, 2014


According to the figures released by the government, the overall state budget for the next Iranian year will be 8,379 trillion rials ($294 billion at the emerging official exchange rate of 28,500 rials to the US dollar),


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3VdsZQJ1U