This action was taken because the Romanian company canceled its contract with the Iranian side after failing to secure higher rental payments and took one of the three rigs out of Iranian waters. So Iran seized this one in accordance with a court order from a judge in Kish. Not everything is political or has to revolve around your obsession with Iran. Beleive it or not, there are people who actually live in Iran and don't give a shit either about the US or Iran's foreign relations. Would be great if you stopped patronizing the country.
Thanks for your input, iranian. It's true we don't hear a lot about Iran's perspective in our media. I didn't know about the contract or the court order.
But I disagree that this blog has an obsession with Iran. If you look over the past month, I count only 3 posts directly dealing with Iran. I think our US government does have an obsession, but a quick perusal of this blog would reveal that I am not a fan of our government or it's foreign policy.
I don't think it is completely out of place to speculate what political implications this action by Iran might have, or what motives might be behind it. If my own government siezed an oil rig in the Persian Gulf, you can be assured that I would be just as suspicious. The reason I asked for more input was because because the action didn't make sense to me.
As to your request that I/we stop "patronizing the country", I assume you mean stop acting in a patronizing manner to Iran. (We're unlikely to stop "patronizing" (i.e. buying from) Iran as long as we have an oil-based energy system, and Iran sells oil.) I am sorry if my speculation as to Iran's motives came across as condescending, but you should hear me when speculating about Bush! "Patronizing" doesn't even begin to describe it. You can also read on this blog thatI question Israel's behavior.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and commenting. If you'd like to make further contributions to Internal Monologue, I'd welcome having someone with more knowledge of Iran around.
Maniak would also like to respond to your comment:
Good to see a response from someone in the know. Sorry if I came across as patronizing. I realize that not everyone in Iran cares about the U.S. and foreign policy, and can assure you that is mutual and many Americans, including some in the government, don't seem to care about foreign policy either. I can accept that this began as a local legal dispute and repossession order, but when international business is involved it automatically moves into the realm of diplomacy. Maybe I'm too cynical or biased, but the scale and scope of law enforcement actions in the U.S. are often driven by larger political concerns (especially around election time). I assumed it was similar in Iran.
Yay, your readership is growing! Welcome, iranian. As Zac said, the U.S. government is obsessed with Iran right now, and thus I think Iran will likely show up as a topic in this blog from time to time in the future. And as Zac's correspondant Maniak points out, even deciding to be non-political in the face of this might be a political choice. (Why am I suddenly hearing Geddy Lee?) The U.S. government should also keep in mind that Iran isn't their other current obsession, North Korea, and that sometimes someone like this judge in Kish might be acting on his own, and not necessarily as an arm of foreign policy.
5:37 PM, August 23, 2006
Anonymous said...
Fair enough, sorry if I came across harsh. But unfortunately a lot of your right-wing colleagues write a lot of nonsense and as a result I'm in a very defensive posture. You do understand that we're talking about life and death, and these stories serve to further what many suspect is the intention to turn Iran into another Iraq.
I agree that the US warmongers who sent us blundering into Iraq will be quick to sieze on any pretext to make their case for Iran. They have been beating the rhetorical drum for quite some time now. I'm sorry if this blog contributed in any way to that pro-war hysteria. I oppose such warmongering vehemently.
I do hope that the US and Iran can resolve their differences without bloodshed. I do think there are major issues that need to be resolved: Nuclear proliferation, Israel, Iraq, etc. I think there will be a much better chance of that once Bush is out of office. I hope that is sooner rather than later. (Impeach Bush now!)
That being said, I don't like a lot of the rhetoric I hear from President Ahmadinejad. He seems virulently anti-Israel. While I understand many in the Middle East have legitimate grievances with Israel, the talk I hear attributed to him is more vehement than what we heard from his predecessor. I was very saddened when the moderate movement in Iran seemed to falter. There was a time several years ago when it seemed like Iran and the US were approaching some kind of "cooling off". I hate to think how much Bush has contributed to the disempowerment of such moderates throughout the region.
The last thing I want to see our country do is to try to turn Iran into another Iraq. I will do my best to ensure that does not happen, but alas my clout with the current administration is not very high. If it was, there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.
Thanks, irianian, for continuing to converse with us.
I hope that one of the "good" things to come out of the Iraq occupation is that the next time around the U.S. media and general populace will think more critically, and not just blindly accept this administration's desire to have a war with Iran.
4:34 PM, August 24, 2006
Apparently, Iran has attacked and captured a Romanian oil rig. Could someone please clue me in as to what the hell is going on here? Why would Iran do this? Is this the opening move in some grand strategic plan, or just some random crazy stuff to keep the world on edge? This article in the Houston chronicle mentions some kind of commercial dispute that Iran decided to respond to with force. I guess what pops into my head is that Iran is sending a signal that it can disrupt Persian Gulf oil if it wants to. But I'm totally pulling that out of my ass. Anyone with more expertise care to weigh in?
UPDATE: Maniak's take (yes, he's a political analyst as well as a rocketry hardware analyst): A strange move on a day that many were expecting Iran might do something crazy. My guess is that the commercial dispute gave an opening for Iran to give the world a hint that it can use oil as a weapon. It's just too suspect coming on the same day as Iran's response to the UN on its nuclear program. Kish, where this oil rig was seized is Iran's answer to Dubai. It's an island of luxury hotels and ports, and the center of Iran's oil trade with Europe. They are in the final stages of building an oil exchange there that will be the first major oil trading market based on the euro rather than the dollar. Seizing the Romanian rig almost within sight of this building could be Iran's way of determining Europe's posture in the upcoming diplomatic battle over the nuclear program. Will they risk derailing the opening of the petroeuro exchange to stick up for Romania? Iran may be using the European response to this provocation to see how viable it could be to evade any impending sanctions.[links added] It's a joy to have Maniak as a resource, this is as good an analysis as anything I've seen out there. I'm still interested in more input to make sense of this.
posted by Zachary Drake at 10:46 PM on Aug 22, 2006
"Iran attacks...Romanian oil rig?"
7 Comments -
This action was taken because the Romanian company canceled its contract with the Iranian side after failing to secure higher rental payments and took one of the three rigs out of Iranian waters. So Iran seized this one in accordance with a court order from a judge in Kish. Not everything is political or has to revolve around your obsession with Iran. Beleive it or not, there are people who actually live in Iran and don't give a shit either about the US or Iran's foreign relations. Would be great if you stopped patronizing the country.
6:04 AM, August 23, 2006
Thanks for your input, iranian. It's true we don't hear a lot about Iran's perspective in our media. I didn't know about the contract or the court order.
But I disagree that this blog has an obsession with Iran. If you look over the past month, I count only 3 posts directly dealing with Iran. I think our US government does have an obsession, but a quick perusal of this blog would reveal that I am not a fan of our government or it's foreign policy.
I don't think it is completely out of place to speculate what political implications this action by Iran might have, or what motives might be behind it. If my own government siezed an oil rig in the Persian Gulf, you can be assured that I would be just as suspicious. The reason I asked for more input was because because the action didn't make sense to me.
As to your request that I/we stop "patronizing the country", I assume you mean stop acting in a patronizing manner to Iran. (We're unlikely to stop "patronizing" (i.e. buying from) Iran as long as we have an oil-based energy system, and Iran sells oil.) I am sorry if my speculation as to Iran's motives came across as condescending, but you should hear me when speculating about Bush! "Patronizing" doesn't even begin to describe it. You can also read on this blog thatI question Israel's behavior.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and commenting. If you'd like to make further contributions to Internal Monologue, I'd welcome having someone with more knowledge of Iran around.
9:21 AM, August 23, 2006
Maniak would also like to respond to your comment:
Good to see a response from someone in the know. Sorry if I came
across as patronizing. I realize that not everyone in Iran cares about
the U.S. and foreign policy, and can assure you that is mutual and many
Americans, including some in the government, don't seem to care about
foreign policy either. I can accept that this began as a local legal
dispute and repossession order, but when international business is
involved it automatically moves into the realm of diplomacy. Maybe I'm
too cynical or biased, but the scale and scope of law enforcement
actions in the U.S. are often driven by larger political concerns
(especially around election time). I assumed it was similar in Iran.
9:22 AM, August 23, 2006
Yay, your readership is growing! Welcome, iranian. As Zac said, the U.S. government is obsessed with Iran right now, and thus I think Iran will likely show up as a topic in this blog from time to time in the future. And as Zac's correspondant Maniak points out, even deciding to be non-political in the face of this might be a political choice. (Why am I suddenly hearing Geddy Lee?) The U.S. government should also keep in mind that Iran isn't their other current obsession, North Korea, and that sometimes someone like this judge in Kish might be acting on his own, and not necessarily as an arm of foreign policy.
5:37 PM, August 23, 2006
Fair enough, sorry if I came across harsh. But unfortunately a lot of your right-wing colleagues write a lot of nonsense and as a result I'm in a very defensive posture. You do understand that we're talking about life and death, and these stories serve to further what many suspect is the intention to turn Iran into another Iraq.
5:35 AM, August 24, 2006
I agree that the US warmongers who sent us blundering into Iraq will be quick to sieze on any pretext to make their case for Iran. They have been beating the rhetorical drum for quite some time now. I'm sorry if this blog contributed in any way to that pro-war hysteria. I oppose such warmongering vehemently.
I do hope that the US and Iran can resolve their differences without bloodshed. I do think there are major issues that need to be resolved: Nuclear proliferation, Israel, Iraq, etc. I think there will be a much better chance of that once Bush is out of office. I hope that is sooner rather than later. (Impeach Bush now!)
That being said, I don't like a lot of the rhetoric I hear from President Ahmadinejad. He seems virulently anti-Israel. While I understand many in the Middle East have legitimate grievances with Israel, the talk I hear attributed to him is more vehement than what we heard from his predecessor. I was very saddened when the moderate movement in Iran seemed to falter. There was a time several years ago when it seemed like Iran and the US were approaching some kind of "cooling off". I hate to think how much Bush has contributed to the disempowerment of such moderates throughout the region.
The last thing I want to see our country do is to try to turn Iran into another Iraq. I will do my best to ensure that does not happen, but alas my clout with the current administration is not very high. If it was, there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.
Thanks, irianian, for continuing to converse with us.
9:30 AM, August 24, 2006
I hope that one of the "good" things to come out of the Iraq occupation is that the next time around the U.S. media and general populace will think more critically, and not just blindly accept this administration's desire to have a war with Iran.
4:34 PM, August 24, 2006