IRI: Israel's nukes world's greatest threat

[RoccoR]

JStone, et al,

Oh yes, this is close. It is an international threat as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism;" on the DOS List since JAN 84 (along with Cuba, Sudan, & Syria).

Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.

Worry more about Iran.

(COMMENT)

Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation. Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained. Currently, the question is over "enrichment." Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard. If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question. No one trusts Iran. But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JStone]

JStone, et al,

Oh yes, this is close. It is an international threat as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism;" on the DOS List since JAN 84 (along with Cuba, Sudan, & Syria).

Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.

Worry more about Iran.

(COMMENT)

Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation. Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained. Currently, the question is over "enrichment." Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard. If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question. No one trusts Iran. But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R

You play videos and watch porn all day.

United States Senator Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore of the US Senate, Awarded Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star...

If one looks at most of this world, especially the Middle East, one country stands out as a foundation of stability and as a pillar of democracy. And at a time like this, when you have revolution in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, thank God we have Israel.
Top senator: An attack on Israel is an a... JPost - International

 

[amir]

R:
Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation. Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained. Currently, the question is over "enrichment." Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard. If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question. No one trusts Iran. But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R
***
Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)
I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)?
You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.

 

[rhodescholar]

Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly) I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)? You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.

What the mentally ill jew haters never mention is that israel has had nuclear weapons since the early 1960s - over 50 years - and has never threatened any other nation that was not about to attack it. They try to pretend there is a double-standard by comparing israel, a democracy, to theocratic, diseased, war mongering, terror-sponsoring, gulag-filled dictatorship of iran - which is simply not acceptable to the rational and intelligent.

To the mentally ill jew haters, jews are supposed to remain weak and vulnerable - never strong - so that they may be blamed and attacked without fear. Sadly for the mentally ill jew hating filth, those days are over.

 

[JStone]

R:
Just because Iran is a threat, doesn't mean that I should worry less about Israel.

I have plenty of concerns with Iran, but I try to stick to the topic; (Israel' nukes world's greatest threat). And in that respect, I disagree that Israel represents a "world nuclear threat," there is no question that its policy of non-NPT membership, and its Nuclear Ambiguous status, has aggravated an already tense Middle East and Persian Gulf security situation.

The cascade effect is a real possibility; relative to proliferation. Iran has not asked to go to the level that Israel has attained. Currently, the question is over "enrichment." Israel is well past that stage, and the unspoken Elephant in the room is the double-standard. If the US protects Israel's right to have a nuclear military component, then as the honest broker, why is Iran being penalized.

Now we all know the answer to this question. No one trusts Iran. But that doesn't address the question of the double-standard.

When we talk about the threat that Iran poses, regionally, continentally, and internationally, I will comment there on the security, vulnerability and risk factors associated with Iran; including its assistance in rearming Hezbollah, in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; as well as, it's unwillingness to bring to justice al-Qaeda members it has in detention, and it's refusal to share intelligence on those in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R
***
Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)
I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)?
You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.

The Rabs are worried over Israel? The Rabs are urging Israel to attack Iran. Get a clue, clueless one.

Reality check for you: Arab American Institute: Survey, Most Arabs Say Iran Playing Negative Role In Iraq and in the Region
Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute

 

[logical4u]

Iran: Israeli nukes greatest threat to peace
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press

2:40 p.m., May 2, 2012



VIENNA — A senior Iranian official said Wednesday that Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to Mideast peace and accused the United States and other nuclear powers of hypocritically ignoring their disarmament commitments.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mahdi Akhondzadeh's comments to a 189-nation nonproliferation meeting reflected Iran's attempts to deflect international concerns that its nuclear activities could be turned to making weapons.

Usually strident Western criticism of Iran has been muted since the conference opened Monday, possibly due to reluctance to burden the atmosphere ahead of a new meeting later this month between Iran and six powers attempting to nudge it toward concessions meant to ease such worries.

But Akhondzadeh didn't hold back. While avoiding direct mention of the United States, his criticism of "certain nuclear-weapon states" encompassed the U.S., Britain and France - three nations that will be sitting at the table with Iran, along with Russia, China and Germany in Baghdad on May 23.

He also described Israel as posing "the gravest threat to the stability and security" of the Middle East.

Although Israel has never confirmed it, it is widely assumed to be the only Mideast nation to possess nuclear arms.

The United States and its allies see Iran as the greatest potential nuclear threat in the Mideast because of its refusal to stop uranium enrichment and other activities that could be used to make such weapons. But Iran and the Arab states say the Jewish state's undeclared arms program poses the most pressing danger.

The United States has thrown its weight behind efforts to convene a meeting of all Mideast states later this year to discuss creating a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

But neither Israel nor Iran have committed to attending, and a recently retired senior Israeli official told The Associated Press his country was unlikely to attend. He demanded anonymity because his information was confidential.

Israel's absence would strip any such Mideast meeting of significance.

Beyond Israel, Akhondzadeh criticized "certain nuclear-weapon states" that have ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, saying their stockpile of weapons "and their continued modernization ... (is) the most serious threat to the survival of mankind."

He accused them of "lack of effective and systematic progress towards implementing nuclear disarmament obligations" under commitments to the Nonproliferation Treaty.

While he did not name the countries, his use of the term "certain" indicated he was talking about the United States, Britain and France. Iran has been careful not to irk Russia and China, the other two nuclear-weapons states that have signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and which oppose sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic by Washington and its Western allies.

"Certain nuclear-weapon states are expected to display sincerity and political will rather than hypocrisy with regard to their nuclear disarmament obligations," Akhondzadeh said.
The Associated Press

Will Iran please list the countries that Israel proclaims should be destroyed completely?
Will Iran please list the peoples that Israel is targeting for genocide?
Will Iran please list the countries where Israel is using terrorist methods to destablize that nation?

 

[daveman]

How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!

Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?

I call anti-Semitism when I see it.

 

[RoccoR]

JStone, amir, et al,

The last thing that the Arab Community (The GCC) wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.

Where I came from it is a saying that goes like this, praise God for not giving horns to donkeys (they're known to go crazy quickly)
I don't understand why you worry about Israel that has never threatened any other country with a nuclear attack. Would you worry more about a guy who is heavily armed but minds his own business, or someone who's not well armed but keep threatening to kill you (wipe you from the face of the earth/pages of history)?
You can relax R, several times Israel existence was in jeopardy but nobody was nuked. The mullahs on the other hand before even getting their hands on nuclear weapons are bullying their neighbors and others.

The Rabs are worried over Israel? The Rabs are urging Israel to attack Iran. Get a clue, clueless one.

Reality check for you: Arab American Institute: Survey, Most Arabs Say Iran Playing Negative Role In Iraq and in the Region
Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute

(COMMENT)

I've never claimed that Iran was playing a positive role. I was sticking to the subject, focused by the thread, on Israel.

But your claim that the GCC wants a "war" which would entangle the crtical infrastructure and passage through the straits, is simply wrong. In fact, no one really wants that to happen. While the Iranian Navy and Special IRGC-QF are out gunned at every turn, it doesn't mean that they cannot cause havoc throughout the Gulf.

• It would only take a few successful strikes (small unit tactical elements) to put Water Distillation/Desalinization facilities, which are absolutely essential, out of production through direct focused attack, sabotage, or other unconventional techniques. And that could seriously hurt countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

• There are several critical choke points that are within strike range of Iran. It would only take a couple of successful conventional attacks to spike oil prices world wide.
  • Straits of Hormuz,
  • Strait of Malacca,
  • Abqaiq processing facility,
  • Suez Canal,
  • Bab el-Mandab,
  • Bosporus/Turkish Straits,
  • Mina al-Ahmadi terminal (Kuwait),
  • Al Basrah oil terminal (Iraq),

And any success, Iran might have against critical vulnerabilities to oil, fresh water facilities, passages and terminals would have a dramatic impact on the economies regionally, on the UE, and the US.

Rough References:

• War Between Saudi Arabia & Iran: An Unpleasant Scenario
• A war with Iran has implications
• A War with Iran; The Regional Dimension

But this was not the focus of the thread.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

The last thing that the Arab Community wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.

You can stop putting forth these idiocies/lies, they've been de-bunked 100 times already, moron.

I've never claimed that Iran was playing a positive role. I was sticking to the subject, focused by the thread, on Israel.

Of course you are. Like every scumbag jew-hating turd, the focus has to always be on israel, even if it is under relentless attack, as we all know - jews are not allowed to defend themselves.

But your claim that the GCC wants a "war" which would entangle the crtical infrastructure and passage through the straits, is simply wrong

Uh, you're an idiot. They've already come out publicly for a US strike, time to read the newspapers, moron.

 

[JStone]

JStone, amir, et al,

The last thing that the Arab Community (The GCC) wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.

Er, wrong, Kissinger: U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes - Washington Times

 

[RoccoR]

JStone, et al,

This story is from July 2010, over 20 months old. Is it possible that this one Ambassador and the UAE and GCC has had time to think?

JStone, amir, et al,

The last thing that the Arab Community (The GCC) wants is for Israel or the US to commit an Act of War, through a preemptive strike, on Iran - and open up hostilities that threaten Gulf Region critical infrastructure for oil and fresh water.

Er, wrong, Kissinger: U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes - Washington Times

(COMMENT)

Yes, I'm no Henry Kissinger, but then - there is more fresh information available that is current.

Reference:

• Gulf states brace for unwanted US-Iran war January 6, 2012
  
  Dubai: The Arab states that lie just miles across the Gulf from Iran are nervously eyeing the prospects of a war between Tehran and the West that none of them want and all know could devastate their economies.
  
  This very real fear is prompting the oil-rich states to enhance their defences while hoping that diplomacy can rein in Tehran's regional ambitions and put an end to its worrying nuclear programme.
  
  "No one in the Gulf States wants war but everyone is preparing for the possibility that it might happen," said military analyst Riad Kahwaji.
  
  Tension has escalated as the West continues to squeeze Tehran over its nuclear programme, with the EU threatening a total ban on Iranian oil imports.
  ​

​

• Iran worries Arabs – but they don't want war 8 May 2012
  
  There is no Arab appetite for the chaos caused by an Israeli or western attack on Iran, despite fears over its expansionism.
  
  ... While it is easy to predict its beginning, it is almost impossible to presage its end. War would redraw alliances and elicit external intervention into the affairs of states and groups. In the event, the Arab spring would end and be replaced by a Middle East autumn, one which would not give the region and the world anything but misery and danger. (Wadah Khanfar is a former director general of the al-Jazeera television network.) — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2012
  ​

• With Much at Stake, GCC Wants to Participate in Iran Negotiations By: Anne Penketh posted on Wednesday, Apr 4, 2012
  
  “If military action happened, we have no control over it,” said Mustafa Alani, Program Director for Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center. ... ... ...
  
  At the same time, there is widespread skepticism that economic sanctions will compel Iran to comply with UN resolutions, and concern that war is a real possibility.
  
  “We don’t want it,” Alani said. “We want it as a last resort, and we think the time is not right now for military action.”​

Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war. I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war. The can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war. But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities. That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war. I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war. The can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war. But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities. That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.

Wrong as usual, fuckbrain moron. With iran already trying to push the GCC on issues like control over the UAE islands, and iran caught multiple times trying to initiate civil uprisings in a number of the GCC, they would LOVE to see the iranian fake regime of thugs and murderers liquidated militarily. You are truly an idiot.

 

[RoccoR]

rhodescholar, et al,

BLUF: The GCC will not risk a war over the Islands unless Iran attempts the closure.

Ha yes! The three Islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Masa have been in dispute since the 1300's. And for the last three decades, and 300 years prior to British Control in 1921, the Island were Persian (Iranian). The Islands were liberated from Portugese colonial control by the Shah Abbas in 1622, and then by re-acquired after British occupation in by the last Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi). I remember this only because it happened in the month I returned from Vietnam and then became an Issue only more recently, after my return from the Persian Gulf Region. For nearly 30 years, it wasn't an issue. It became an issue when Iran began to exert it influence and threats over the Straits.

Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war. I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war. The (same) can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war. But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities. That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.

Wrong as usual, fuckbrain moron. With iran already trying to push the GCC on issues like control over the UAE islands, and iran caught multiple times trying to initiate civil uprisings in a number of the GCC, they would LOVE to see the iranian fake regime of thugs and murderers liquidated militarily. You are truly an idiot.

(COMMENT)

This is a struggle over the control of the navigable portion of the Straits of Hormus. And while you are quite correct, that the GCC would be happy to see Iran neutralized as a regional threat, you would not be correct in assuming the GCC would risk a closure of the Straits due to hostilities over the Islands. Two successive Chairs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the DirCIA/SECDEF have all indicated the potential for a closure of an unspecified duration, should Iran take the action.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agreed with Dempsey, saying that the Iranians “need to know that if they take that step [of trying to build a nuclear weapon] that they’re going to get stopped.”

Panetta also said that the United States military would end an Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. “They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Straits of Hormuz,” Panetta said. “But we would take action and reopen the Straits.”
SOURCE: GENERAL DEMPSEY: US planning for military strike on Iran | WashEx

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a U.S. strike on Iran would be "very destabilizing," as would a nuclear Iran, during an assessment of American foreign policy in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Russia on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

Panetta also said that the United States military would end an Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. “They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Straits of Hormuz,” Panetta said. “But we would take action and reopen the Straits.”

SOURCE: Mullen: Iran Strike Would Be Destabilizing
Mullen: Iran Strike Would Be Destabilizing - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Our Policy and Position is caution.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says military action against Iran could have unintended consequences. The warning came at a press conference Thursday.

At a joint conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey, Panetta (SECDEF) warned against any military action. Panetta said he agrees with the assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a military strike would only set the Iranian nuclear program back by three years at most.

"You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here and those consequences could involve not only, not really deterring Iran from what they want to do, but more importantly it could have a serious impact in the region and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region," said Panetta.

SOURCE:
US Defense Chief Warns Against Military Strike on Iran

The GCC and the Greater Middle East Community has concerns.

This broad embargo on Iranian oil, which in effect takes 1.5 million barrels a day off the global market without another producer being able to compensate for it, risks pushing the market price up between 20-30%, which is roughly a $20-30 per barrel increase, a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger an even larger spike than this.

Saudi Arabia has stepped in to try and compensate for this through increased production however this contingency isn’t without issue itself given Saudi Arabia’s geographical position and reliance on Hormuz being open the IMF warned that the Saudi buffer is similarly at risk.

Yesterday (30th January), coastguards and naval forces of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) unveiled what on the face of it appear to be fairly robust contingency plans should the Strait of Hormuz be closed through action taken by Iran. GCC said that these measures are purely precautionary and are necessary not just because of the interruption to gas and oil exports that a closure would cause but also because member states including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Kuwait rely on Hormuz for the import of food.

SOURCE: How might the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affect the forex markets?

Having said all that, the closure is a double-edged sword. It would hurt Iran just as much as it would hurt the US/EU and Indian Ocean/Pacific Nations. So the outright closure of the Straits are much less likely than one might expect. And that makes the struggle over the three disputed Islands much less an issue.

The GCC will not support a war that might threaten to cause supply bottlenecks or severe damage to their critical infrastructure in terms of food, water, and oil export capacity, if the likelihood that Iran will actually close the straits is low. However that may change as the GCC moves to establish a Region-wide rail system that may become an alternative to the straits.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JStone]

rhodescholar, et al,

BLUF: The GCC will not risk a war over the Islands unless Iran attempts the closure.

Ha yes! The three Islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Masa have been in dispute since the 1300's. And for the last three decades, and 300 years prior to British Control in 1921, the Island were Persian (Iranian). The Islands were liberated from Portugese colonial control by the Shah Abbas in 1622, and then by re-acquired after British occupation in by the last Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi). I remember this only because it happened in the month I returned from Vietnam and then became an Issue only more recently, after my return from the Persian Gulf Region. For nearly 30 years, it wasn't an issue. It became an issue when Iran began to exert it influence and threats over the Straits.

Now, realizing that there is seldom universal agreement on any position, you will always find an opposing view that promotes war. I admit, there are any number of pro-Israeli articles and commentaries in support of war. The (same) can be said for AIRPAC inspired lobby action for war. But it will be hard to find an Arab State or Gulf Community member that wants to initiate hostilities. That doesn't mean they will not prepare for the worst case senario.

Wrong as usual, fuckbrain moron. With iran already trying to push the GCC on issues like control over the UAE islands, and iran caught multiple times trying to initiate civil uprisings in a number of the GCC, they would LOVE to see the iranian fake regime of thugs and murderers liquidated militarily. You are truly an idiot.

(COMMENT)

This is a struggle over the control of the navigable portion of the Straits of Hormus. And while you are quite correct, that the GCC would be happy to see Iran neutralized as a regional threat, you would not be correct in assuming the GCC would risk a closure of the Straits due to hostilities over the Islands. Two successive Chairs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the DirCIA/SECDEF have all indicated the potential for a closure of an unspecified duration, should Iran take the action.



Our Policy and Position is caution.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says military action against Iran could have unintended consequences. The warning came at a press conference Thursday.

At a joint conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey, Panetta (SECDEF) warned against any military action. Panetta said he agrees with the assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a military strike would only set the Iranian nuclear program back by three years at most.

"You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here and those consequences could involve not only, not really deterring Iran from what they want to do, but more importantly it could have a serious impact in the region and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region," said Panetta.

SOURCE:
US Defense Chief Warns Against Military Strike on Iran

The GCC and the Greater Middle East Community has concerns.

This broad embargo on Iranian oil, which in effect takes 1.5 million barrels a day off the global market without another producer being able to compensate for it, risks pushing the market price up between 20-30%, which is roughly a $20-30 per barrel increase, a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger an even larger spike than this.

Saudi Arabia has stepped in to try and compensate for this through increased production however this contingency isn’t without issue itself given Saudi Arabia’s geographical position and reliance on Hormuz being open the IMF warned that the Saudi buffer is similarly at risk.

Yesterday (30th January), coastguards and naval forces of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) unveiled what on the face of it appear to be fairly robust contingency plans should the Strait of Hormuz be closed through action taken by Iran. GCC said that these measures are purely precautionary and are necessary not just because of the interruption to gas and oil exports that a closure would cause but also because member states including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Kuwait rely on Hormuz for the import of food.

SOURCE: How might the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affect the forex markets?

Having said all that, the closure is a double-edged sword. It would hurt Iran just as much as it would hurt the US/EU and Indian Ocean/Pacific Nations. So the outright closure of the Straits are much less likely than one might expect. And that makes the struggle over the three disputed Islands much less an issue.

The GCC will not support a war that might threaten to cause supply bottlenecks or severe damage to their critical infrastructure in terms of food, water, and oil export capacity, if the likelihood that Iran will actually close the straits is low. However that may change as the GCC moves to establish a Region-wide rail system that may become an alternative to the straits.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why waste valuable bandwidth with your unintelligible gibberish?