In Syria

[Josh]

OPEC has historically gone agains US desires numerous times before. That is practically why it exists. The US At various times leans on the KSA, who as one of the largest suppliers can force the issue of higher quotas, with varying levels of success.

As for the KSA and Iran, opening an embassy hardly erases decades of strategic competition. If Iran goes nuclear, The Fresh Prince Of Riyadh will be begging for a U.S. strike. Though it isn’t clear to me the Biden administration will answer that call, previous statements not withstanding.

[glenn239]

18 minutes ago, Josh said:

OPEC has historically gone against US desires numerous times before.

The US has mobilized it's economic and diplomatic arsenal in all corners of the globe in order to defeat Russia in Ukraine.  With OPEC, it appears to have failed.   

Quote

As for the KSA and Iran, opening an embassy hardly erases decades of strategic competition. If Iran goes nuclear, The Fresh Prince Of Riyadh will be begging for a U.S. strike. 

You're spinning yarns - we don't know the implications of this move, except that it happened in defiance of American wishes.   In fact, this Saudi-Iranian deal is incomprehensible unless it means that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon and the Arabs will not allow the USAF to bomb Iran.    No Arab bases, no Iranian nuclear weapon, no USAF war against Iran.  That's the logical power politic of the potential deal.  It's obvious.

You are at some level starting to become concerned that Biden does not know what he is doing, aren't you?

 

[Josh]

33 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The US has mobilized it's economic and diplomatic arsenal in all corners of the globe in order to defeat Russia in Ukraine.  With OPEC, it appears to have failed.   

As it has in past circumstances, yes. Although while OPEC is pumping less, one has to wonder whether dropping Russian production is a decision or simply an unavoidable reality - we (open source) will probably have to wait for a big economic upturn to evaluate Russia's maximum oil production capacity. I suspect anything that stop producing now doesn't get restarted, however.

33 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

You're spinning yarns - we don't know the implications of this move, except that it happened in defiance of American wishes.   In fact, this Saudi-Iranian deal is incomprehensible unless it means that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon and the Arabs will not allow the USAF to bomb Iran.    No Arab bases, no Iranian nuclear weapon, no USAF war against Iran.  That's the logical power politic of the potential deal.  It's obvious.

You are at some level starting to become concerned that Biden does not know what he is doing, aren't you?

 

In what way was the KSA and Iran mending fences against US wishes? I think you're the one spinning yarns. The Biden admin has been against the Yamen war for some time, and winding that down is part of this reproachment. Preventing Iran from getting the bomb is also a major US goal - if Iran doesn't produce a bomb and the US gets to keep its sanctions at the same time, then its basically JCPOA Lite with the US having to do nothing in return. The US would be against this why? The US has no interest in starting a war with Iran; I'm rather convinced the Biden administration would rather push Israel into doing it first, IF Iran went nuclear. But if the region will just settle down on its own, then its win-win-win for the US, KSA, and Iran as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect Biden feels that way as well.

Also it seems the Chinese involvement in the whole thing was rather minimal and that this was predominantly an Iraqi brokered deal - this article makes it sound like a several year process for which Xi just swooped in for the photo op:

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/explainer-how-iraq-planted-seeds-chinas-saudi-iran-deal

Edited April 4, 2023 by Josh

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

As it has in past circumstances, yes. Although while OPEC is pumping less, one has to wonder whether dropping Russian production is a decision or simply an unavoidable reality - we (open source) will probably have to wait for a big economic upturn to evaluate Russia's maximum oil production capacity. I suspect anything that stop producing now doesn't get restarted, however.

The Russians and Saudis tend to cut production in unison is my impression.  So, a Russian production cut is no surprise.  The basic problem is that other than major advances in unicorn shit, the West is not ready to transition away from fossil fuels in the next decade.  OPEC has been maintaining high production as much as a courtesy to the West as for economic want - they could cut production by 50% and increase price by 300% and there is jack shit the West could do except pay the new price.  Or, maybe if Biden called MBS's sister a dog faced pony soldier, that might help.

I think the neocons in Washington and Europe have way overplayed their cards in their global Ukraine policy, and in doing so they have offended most of the planet.  This is actually good news, because it means that Western policy might just naturally self-correct into more realistic territory.
 

Quote

 

In what way was the KSA and Iran mending fences against US wishes? I think you're the one spinning yarns. 

 

The US simply does not want the Saudis on good terms with the Iranians, as any credible threat the USAF poses to Iran requires bases in the Persian Gulf region.  Yet, that is the direction things seem to be going.  In fact, the full scale of the new Chinese foreign policy will take some time to assess.   But, for the moment, I think Israeli and USAF planners can assume (a)  that no Arab airbases will be made available for any air campaign in Iran and (b) that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by glenn239

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The Russians and Saudis tend to cut production in unison is my impression.  So, a Russian production cut is no surprise.  The basic problem is that other than major advances in unicorn shit, the West is not ready to transition away from fossil fuels in the next decade.  OPEC has been maintaining high production as much as a courtesy to the West as for economic want - they could cut production by 50% and increase price by 300% and there is jack shit the West could do except pay the new price.  Or, maybe if Biden called MBS's sister a dog faced pony soldier, that might help.

That Russia and the KSA are two of the biggest oil providers is hardly a new situation. That the US produces as much as them is. OPEC doesn’t make oil as a courtesy; they do so because it suits their interests. If the KSA wants to spike oil prices just to throw thier weight around, then they will pay an economic, political, and military price for doing so. That they historically haven’t since the oil embargo seems to indicate they don’t think it’s worth it. The fact that the US is on and off one of the largest energy producers now makes that a far more hollow threat than any time since the embargo.

 

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think the neocons in Washington and Europe have way overplayed their cards in their global Ukraine policy, and in doing so they have offended most of the planet.  This is actually good news, because it means that Western policy might just naturally self-correct into more realistic territory.
 

No one in the globs south cares about Ukraine either way unless the buy wheat there. The current war has been going on for over a year and it doesn’t seem like anyone who’s involved is having significant fatigue. It is a sustainable war for all parties IMO.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The US simply does not want the Saudis on good terms with the Iranians, as any credible threat the USAF poses to Iran requires bases in the Persian Gulf region.  Yet, that is the direction things seem to be going.  In fact, the full scale of the new Chinese foreign policy will take some time to assess.   But, for the moment, I think Israeli and USAF planners can assume (a)  that no Arab airbases will be made available for any air campaign in Iran and (b) that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon.

 

I think the only Biden Administration goal with regards to Iran is preventing it from going nuclear. Iranian proxies are an Israeli and Saudi problem, and if the Crown Prince wants kiss the Super, who cares? Oil flows, no nukes, problems solved. Hezbollah can Bibi’s dilemma.

Your assumption is that the US wants to bomb Iran for arbitrary reasons and I don’t know where you’re getting that from. A nuclear test is about the only thing that push the US in that direction.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Josh

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

Your assumption is that the US wants to bomb Iran for arbitrary reasons and I don’t know where you’re getting that from. A nuclear test is about the only thing that push the US in that direction.

 My assumption is that the US wants Iran isolated.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

That Russia and the KSA are two of the biggest oil providers is hardly a new situation. That the US produces as much as them is.

You're not going to admit that Biden is making mistakes left, right and center.  But he is.  On the second point, US production can handle US needs, but not those of Europe as well.

[seahawk]

Is that not a bonus for the US? As it puts Europe's economy under additional pressure.

[Josh]

13 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 My assumption is that the US wants Iran isolated.

The US wants Iran to not have nukes and stop supporting proxy forces across the region. They have always been willing to settle for the former and skip the latter; witness JCPOA. That didn't even address their ballistic missile program, let alone their support for terrorist groups.

[Josh]

13 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You're not going to admit that Biden is making mistakes left, right and center.  But he is. 

I don't see any problem with the current situation in the mid east outside Iran being within months or weeks of a nuclear weapon, which would violently rearrange the regions politics. Trump created the problem of a nuclear Iran by backing out of JCPOA which was imperfect but maintained the status quo through the next decade. IMO its only fitting that his Saudi butt buddy bails out the situation.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Josh

[Josh]

13 hours ago, glenn239 said:

On the second point, US production can handle US needs, but not those of Europe as well.

Win-win. If Europe wants to send in military force to unfuck the mid east, they are welcome to.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

The US wants Iran to not have nukes and stop supporting proxy forces across the region. They have always been willing to settle for the former and skip the latter; witness JCPOA. That didn't even address their ballistic missile program, let alone their support for terrorist groups.

In the Global Game of Risk, the US would love to have Iran "on side". That seems highly unlikely, so the next best bet would be for it to be a failed state, barely able to control goings on in its own nether regions - like Iraq or Syria. That's also tricky to bring about at the moment. So constant diplomatic and economic pressure, hopefully resulting in economic hardship or even collapse, is the next best thing. If Iran and Saudi suddenly start making friends in economic terms, the US position is in trouble because it means Iran could continue to thumb its nose at US authority in the region and also potentially become prosperous... or at least not become an economic basket case. Either of those outcomes make things tricky for the US.

I'm not saying the nuclear thing isn't a big deal. It is. But there's a broader geopolitical picture to also consider.

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, ink said:

In the Global Game of Risk, the US would love to have Iran "on side". That seems highly unlikely, so the next best bet would be for it to be a failed state, barely able to control goings on in its own nether regions - like Iraq or Syria. That's also tricky to bring about at the moment. So constant diplomatic and economic pressure, hopefully resulting in economic hardship or even collapse, is the next best thing. If Iran and Saudi suddenly start making friends in economic terms, the US position is in trouble because it means Iran could continue to thumb its nose at US authority in the region and also potentially become prosperous... or at least not become an economic basket case. Either of those outcomes make things tricky for the US.

I'm not saying the nuclear thing isn't a big deal. It is. But there's a broader geopolitical picture to also consider.

The US always would prefer regime change in Iran, if it could snap its fingers and do so. But keeping Iran in its box is pretty much the policy of every recent administration, John Bolton's fantasies not withstanding. The KSA doesn't really have much to offer Iran in terms of sanctions relief - its not like Iran needs oil. I don't think the KSA and Iran being more disposed to each other is optimal for the US, but I think the current administration would trade that outcome for an end to the Yemen war. If there is some kind of nuclear deal attached that prevented Iran from producing a nuclear warhead (Glenn thinks there is, I personally do not) then that would be an absolute win for the US and they'd take that outcome any day of the week.

In any case, opening an embassy is hardly economic cooperation. It remains to be seen what kind of relationship the two hash out; at the moment all they've agree to is re-establishing a diplomatic exchange. That's hardly sitting around the campfire singing songs together.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I don't see any problem with the current situation in the mid east

That will be something you, Xi, and Putin all agree on.

 

[Josh]

11 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

That will be something you, Xi, and Putin all agree on.

 

That is particularly deceiving quote clip even for you. Let me repost for some more context:

"I don't see any problem with the current situation in the mid east outside Iran being within months or weeks of a nuclear weapon, which would violently rearrange the regions politics."

You also didn't address the fact that an Iranian nuke is specifically a Trump fuck up of tearing down JCPOA and then having no other solution to put in place of it.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

...The KSA doesn't really have much to offer Iran in terms of sanctions relief - its not like Iran needs oil....

Oh, but all the nice oil processing equipment with blank end user certificate that could be lost... It is not that Saudis did not and do not already play such game - google tech transfers to Russia using Saudis as middleman.

Edited April 5, 2023 by bojan

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

Oh, but all the nice oil processing equipment with blank end user certificate that could be lost... It is not that Saudis did not and do not already play such game - google tech transfers to Russia using Saudis as middleman.

Ah, fair point.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

That is particularly deceiving quote clip even for you. Let me repost for some more context:

"I don't see any problem with the current situation in the mid east outside Iran being within months or weeks of a nuclear weapon, which would violently rearrange the regions politics."

In a month Biden has suffered two body blows, first OPEC ignoring US urging to increase production, (there is news today that BIden is again dipping into the strategic reserve).  Second, the Iranian-Saudi deal.  Neither suggests that Washington is in control of the diplomatic trajectory in this region. 

Quote

You also didn't address the fact that an Iranian nuke is specifically a Trump fuck up of tearing down JCPOA and then having no other solution to put in place of it.

As we've discussed in the past, I thought Trump's Iranian policy was amongst his worst.  I suspect the Iranians have never had any intention of building a nuclear arsenal, they've just peddled discussions here and there seeking concessions to not do what they were not going to do anyways.  Because of Biden's failures of leadership, it looks like they've found taker in the Saudis and Chinese.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

In a month Biden has suffered two body blows, first OPEC ignoring US urging to increase production, (there is news today that BIden is again dipping into the strategic reserve).  Second, the Iranian-Saudi deal.  Neither suggests that Washington is in control of the diplomatic trajectory in this region. 

As we've discussed in the past, I thought Trump's Iranian policy was amongst his worst.  I suspect the Iranians have never had any intention of building a nuclear arsenal, they've just peddled discussions here and there seeking concessions to not do what they were not going to do anyways.  Because of Biden's failures of leadership, it looks like they've found taker in the Saudis and Chinese.

I don't see the fact that KSA and Iran are talking to each other and that China is taking all the credit for something Iraq did as the foreign policy fail you do, especially if, as you insist, it mean Iran has agreed to not develop a nuclear weapon. And I think if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, it will be because of Trump's fundamental fuck up and that there was little the Biden admin could do to correct his mistake.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Josh

[Strannik]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

"I don't see any problem with the current situation in the mid east outside Iran being within months or weeks of a nuclear weapon, which would violently rearrange the regions politics."
 

Iran can make fissile material for a bomb 'in about 12 days' - U.S. official - month old article

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Iran can make fissile material for a bomb 'in about 12 days' - U.S. official - month old article

Yeah, it has been that way for a month or two now. Miley just went before Congress a week or so ago and said "two weeks" with "several months" to actually build the weapon after the enrichment was completed. He really bent Israel out of shape by saying "we will not allow a nuclear weapon to be fielded", which implied that further enrichment might not be a red line. That got Bibi's attention apparently, whether is an accident or not.

I think Iran wants to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip or else it would have already finished a device, but they haven't gotten the terms they wanted and have all but run out of steps they can take to pressure the Biden administration.

[Strannik]

The dance:

Washington raises proposal that would have Iran limit enrichment to 60% in exchange for sanctions relief, but Tehran only wants return to full 2015 agreement.

Iran still has ways to go to 90%.  It will wait for the right time - doesn't need the war now.

US redline mutates into fielding/deploying. 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Strannik

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

I don't see the fact that KSA and Iran are talking to each other and that China is taking all the credit for something Iraq did as the foreign policy fail you do.

The problem is that if the Saudis and Iran both become allies of China, then Chinese influence will have too much control of Western energy supply.  Keeping the Saudis close has been fundamental to all US administrations since the 1970's.    Now, because of Biden, that's over.

Quote

 And I think if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, it will be because of Trump's fundamental fuck up 

We agree that Iran seems more interested in bartering not to build nukes than it is in building nukes.  So, if it happens, this will also be Biden's fault.  Trump did Biden no favors on the Iranian front, but Biden had the chance to re-instate the deal and decided not to.  That's on him, not Trump.

[Josh]

12 hours ago, Strannik said:

The dance:

Washington raises proposal that would have Iran limit enrichment to 60% in exchange for sanctions relief, but Tehran only wants return to full 2015 agreement.

Iran still has ways to go to 90%.  It will wait for the right time - doesn't need the war now.

US redline mutates into fielding/deploying. 

 

 

Enrichment gets pretty trivial once you are past 20%, let alone 60%.

I think it would take Iran detonating a device for the US to do anything about it. Israel on the other hand probably has a lower threshold, and even if it can't achieve its goals militarily, it can start war that likely will drag the US into the equation.

It is rather amazing how little press coverage this gets in the West; Trump and the Ukraine war have sucked all the air out of the room. Had this happened in 2021 I feel like the US media would have WAR WITH IRAN? headlines everywhere by now.