What's new

Countries drastically reducing oil trade with Iran

Ingis

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
515
Reaction score
0

BBC News - US puts economic squeeze on Iran


As pressure grows on Iran over its nuclear programme, there is evidence that behind the scenes, the United States has stepped up its push to isolate Tehran economically.

In recent weeks a number of countries and companies have cut back on their imports of Iranian crude oil. They include some of Iran's most important trading partners: China, Japan and India.

At the same time more companies have stopped supplying Iran with refined petroleum. Because of a shortage of refining capacity, Iran relies on such imports to meet domestic demand.

The move was explained in unusually blunt terms this week by a senior US official.

William Burns, US Under-Secretary of State, told a Congressional committee: "What we've been doing is to try to use every lever that we already have at our disposal to encourage foreign companies, foreign entities to cut their ties with the Iranian economy."

"The squeeze is on," said Kate Dorian, Dubai bureau chief for the energy analysts Platts. "Very few people are willing to deal with Iran directly."

Even the head of the Iranian union of oil exporters, Hamid Hoseyni, has acknowledged there has been a cut in exports of Iranian oil to China, Japan and India - all key customers - though he said overall Iranian exports had not been affected.

The pressure on Iran comes as the United States leads a push for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

President Obama has said he expects the measures to be agreed at the UN Security Council "this spring". Spring officially turns to summer in the United States on 21 June, so that gives American diplomats just over two months to conclude their negotiations.

Production down?

Hard figures are difficult to confirm, and traders point out that Iran may simply have been over-pricing its oil. Iranian oil also suffers from being very "heavy" so it can be more difficult to sell when the market is over-supplied.

Platts energy analysts reckon that Iranian output is holding up at 3.76 million barrels a day, well above their Opec target. But others use Iranian government figures to paint a much less rosy picture, suggesting Iran is producing not much more than 3.5 million barrels a day.

Mr Hoseyni of the Iranian union of oil exporters is quoted as saying that China has cut imports from Iran from 400,000 barrels a day to 200,000 barrels a day.

Japan is also reported to have cut back on imports of Iranian oil. And the Indian company Reliance has also reduced or ended its dealings with Iran.

Reliance was an important customer for Iranian oil because its huge refinery was particularly suited to processing Iran's output of heavy or very heavy crude.

According to the semi-official Iranian news agency, ISNA, Reliance was buying 90 to 100,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2.4% of Iranian output.

Reliance was also one of the biggest suppliers of refined petroleum to Iran, and it is one of a number of petrol suppliers who appear to have succumbed to political pressure to pull out of trading with Iran, or at least cut back on the business.


Others include the Russian company, Lukoil, BP, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol, Glencore and IPG.

Dependence

Iran's dependence on imported petroleum has often been identified as one of its weaknesses. Iranians love their cars, and when petrol rationing was introduced in the summer of 2007, there was violence on the streets.

The US congress has been pressing President Obama to introduce sanctions on petrol exports to Iran. So far Mr Obama has been reluctant to go ahead, at least with any formal measure.

Some analysts point out that Iran has alternative suppliers who can fill the gaps. The analysts PFC say that Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Kuwait and Malaysia have all been willing to make up the shortfall.

A Chinese tanker this week was reported to be preparing to carry a major shipment of petrol to Iran. And Total of France is also still selling petrol to Iran.

Total's CEO has said that his company has received "indirect" messages from Washington about such sales, though not a direct request to stop.

At the very least, though, the pressure means Iran may have to pay a premium for its petrol imports, even if they can be re-sourced through flags of convenience.

The pressure on Iran is an interesting study in how the United States uses its economic might to leverage political influence.

Lukoil, for example, although it is a Russia company, also has major US shareholders, and a chain of petrol stations in the United States. Reliance of India also has significant interests in America as well.


US pressure

For some time, American officials have been using these levers to curtail financial transactions with Iran.

European banks have received a simple message: they can either trade with Iran, or with the United States, not both.

US treasury officials have made a least two visits to Europe to underline the message.

As a result it is becoming increasingly difficult to transfer money to and from Iran, and it is almost impossible to obtain letters of credit, another possible reason for the reduction in the oil trade.

The United States has also been using its alliance with Saudi Arabia to help suggest alternative sources of oil supply for Asian countries who make up some of Iran's most important customers.

There's also a wider push to encourage non-American companies to stop doing business with Iran.

The German company Daimler announced this week that it was pulling out of Iran. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has reportedly agreed to discourage trade between German companies and Iran, so long as Washington does not use public pressure on the issue.

Austria, however, still actively and openly promotes trade with the Islamic Republic.

Worker unrest

The Obama administration says it wants new UN sanctions to target the nuclear programme, and specifically the Revolutionary Guards, who occupy a growing position of power within the Islamic Republic.

American officials argue that they want to hurt the leadership and not the Iranian people. There's also a fear that the Iranian government could blame sanctions for its self-created economic problems.

In any case, Washington would be unlikely to secure agreement at the United Nations for the sort of measures it is pressing informally.

But the behind the scenes pressure to isolate Iran economically seems designed to produce more widespread economic problems, and perhaps even to provoke worker unrest.

Exile groups have been giving many details of layoffs imposed on Iranian workers, and also numerous protests over unpaid wages.

Those are all indications that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government is facing growing economic pressure, at a time when its legitimacy continues to be challenged following the disputed election last summer.

To date, though, worker unrest has not risen to the point that it appears to pose a major threat to the government.

Nevertheless economic pressure on the Iranian government, combined with mismanagement and under-investment, and growing domestic demand, does appear to mean that Iran is struggling to maintain the current level of oil export earnings, a critical lifeline for the government.

Internal division

According to one western analysis of figures from the Iranian central bank, those lower oil earnings are seriously depleting Iranian foreign currency reserves. Mr Ahmadinejad's profligate spending have made things worse as well.

Under this assessment reserves could reach a critical level within a year, forcing the government either to devalue the Iranian rial, or to make other drastic policy decisions.

One of the biggest problems for Mr Ahmadinejad's government is that it is severely weakened since the disputed election last summer. It has often appeared incapable of decisive action, sometimes close to paralysis.

The divisions are not so much between government and opposition, as those between different factions of conservatives. Mr Ahmadinejad himself is deeply unpopular even amongst many fellow conservatives. He is not owed many favours.

The effect of that has been seen most clearly in the dramatic swings in policy over the nuclear issue. But it is also causing big problems in the management of the economy.

One response to the financial crisis might be to cut subsidies, particularly petrol subsidies, something Mr Ahmadinejad has been trying to do.

But the Iranian president has been entangled in a long running dispute with the parliament over the extent of subsidy reform, and there's no sign of an early resolution.

This American economic pressure appears aimed to encourage Mr Ahmadinejad to come to the table over the nuclear issue. So far there is little sign of this bearing fruit. And there is little sign that President Ahmadinejad's government even has the authority to offer a deal over the nuclear question, even if it wanted to.

But Western policy makers could also be playing a longer game. They may be hoping that in the longer term, economic pressure could undermine Mr Ahmadinejad's position, or even eventually threaten the very existence of the Islamic Republic itself.
 
.
I think these are good steps. An Iran with nuclear weapons will add to regional instability and will be potentially harmful for both India and Pakistan.

It seems other countries too, particularly China, are realizing the ills of a nuclear Iran.

I'm always pro-Iran but the country's leadership is messed up. I definitely don't want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's leaders.
 
.
I think these are good steps. An Iran with nuclear weapons will add to regional instability and will be potentially harmful for both India and Pakistan.

It seems other countries too, particularly China, are realizing the ills of a nuclear Iran.

I'm always pro-Iran but the country's leadership is messed up. I definitely don't want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's leaders.

I am not even pro-Iran, particularly judging by the obnoxiousness of some of the posters carrying the Iranian colour. But that's highly subjective.

Many are perhaps pro-"Persia", and I could certainly see the attractions to a degree ... in a cultural/historical sense. However, much of it may just be semantics and "romantics" ...

But when it comes down to it, I am with a certain roiled Bozorgmehr who laid down certain principles here that undeniably resonated ...

Is this a dispute with the less-than-savory "dinner jacket" or the "Mullahs"?

I don't recall anybody putting the squeeze on Amrika's gasoline supply when Georgie, Dickie, Condie and Wolfie were running the circus ...

I reserve my judgment on the merit of such "news". As I said, a little "Tai-Chi" here and there is just politics. But when the chips are down ... we'll know if certain countries have a future, a long term viable future that is. Or even whether they deserve a future.

And I don't mean Iran here ...
 
Last edited:
.
if china abandons iran it would be a major misstep and a step backwards for chinese diplomacy.

i think that this has secret meaning though. these companies are not stupid, they must have recieved threats directly from the US. it would seem that a US invasion of iran is imminent.
 
.
if china abandons iran it would be a major misstep and a step backwards for chinese diplomacy.

i think that this has secret meaning though. these companies are not stupid, they must have recieved threats directly from the US. it would seem that a US invasion of iran is imminent.

another retard

I'll remember this thread and will bump it every month. Lets see if Iran is attacked by next year. :cheers:
 
.
if china abandons iran it would be a major misstep and a step backwards for chinese diplomacy.

i think that this has secret meaning though. these companies are not stupid, they must have recieved threats directly from the US. it would seem that a US invasion of iran is imminent.

How will a nuclear Iran benefit China?


Even some Pakistanis want Iran to be a Nuclear Power but I think it'll be bad for Pakistan and the rest of Asia, then there'll be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia would also want to be Nuclear Powers if Iran becomes a Nuclear Power.


Middle East is much more complicated than Central/South Asia. Its not all about Israel/Palestine fights in Middle East theres a lot of issues in that region.
 
.
How will a nuclear Iran benefit China?


Even some Pakistanis want Iran to be a Nuclear Power but I think it'll be bad for Pakistan and the rest of Asia, then there'll be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia would also want to be Nuclear Powers if Iran becomes a Nuclear Power.


Middle East is much more complicated than Central/South Asia. Its not all about Israel/Palestine fights in Middle East theres a lot of issues in that region.

saudi arabia wouldn't be able to become nuclear if their lives depended on it
Think about it!
A 25 million country that imports 90 percent of what it consumes!!!!!
So their only option is another country and the US WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS GIVE IT TO THEM!!!!
what would be in it for the Americans???? The arabs are already GIVING THE AMERICANS EVERYTHING and the Americans in return give them everything they need to live. W/out the Americans Saudi Arabia would collapse in months. So there is no incentives for the Americans and Americans know full well that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islamic extremism. Alquaida, Osama, 9/11 HELLO!!!
Never in a billion years
 
.
if china abandons iran it would be a major misstep and a step backwards for chinese diplomacy.

i think that this has secret meaning though. these companies are not stupid, they must have recieved threats directly from the US. it would seem that a US invasion of iran is imminent.

Ab! we can entertain. %!#@ we will have to ignore. First of all it should be clear that Iran was, is and never will be PRC's "ally". So the question of "abandoning" is a straw-man argument ...

And the PRC shouldn't even want any "allies" in a conventional sense of the word wrt Iran, and neither should Iran, given the nation's history and temperament.

People in Asia should seek partnerships, and not focus on some meaningless, ever-shifting alliance-building.

Whether or not an invasion of Iran is imminent, preparation for the worst has to be made. As I said, for you, the question is not whether Iran will have a future (it's up to Iranians to strive for and the Almighty to decide upon).

But will you have a future as a people? What are you striving for? You said "天佑我中华" - why? What have you done? What have you surrendered to the Almighty?

These are not rhetorical questions.
 
.
How will a nuclear Iran benefit China?


Even some Pakistanis want Iran to be a Nuclear Power but I think it'll be bad for Pakistan and the rest of Asia, then there'll be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia would also want to be Nuclear Powers if Iran becomes a Nuclear Power.


Middle East is much more complicated than Central/South Asia. Its not all about Israel/Palestine fights in Middle East theres a lot of issues in that region.

IMHO Omar, a nuclear Iran benefits no one. A nuclear "anyone" benefits no one per se - not even the "possessor" itself one may argue.

My Good Book says "the meek shall inherit the earth" ...

But a destabilized, or in the worst case scenario balkanized Iran is definitely disastrous for everyone, Pakistan most definitely included - IMO. Surely, someone needs to remind the Iranians to be "mindful" of their Arab and Sunni neighbours' "alarm". That's something both Pakistan and Turkey could, and should do.

So let the nations strive for a happy medium - a "paranuclear" and sensible Iran ...
 
.
Ab! we can entertain. %!#@ we will have to ignore. First of all it should be clear that Iran was, is and never will be PRC's "ally". So the question of "abandoning" is a straw-man argument ...

And the PRC shouldn't even want any "allies" in a conventional sense of the word wrt Iran, and neither should Iran, given the nation's history and temperament.

People in Asia should seek partnerships, and not focus on some meaningless, ever-shifting alliance-building.

Whether or not an invasion of Iran is imminent, preparation for the worst has to be made. As I said, for you, the question is not whether Iran will have a future (it's up to Iranians to strive for and the Almighty to decide upon).

But will you have a future as a people? What are you striving for? You said "天佑我中华" - why? What have you done? What have you surrendered to the Almighty?

These are not rhetorical questions.

its a figure of speech. this is not the place for religious talks.

the word abandon may have been used incorrectly. perhaps a better way of putting it is, it is not in china's strategic interest to lose a major source of oil. it may be if the price of getting that oil is too high. who knows. however, if the US conquers iran successfully, it can be said that it would not in any way strengthen china's position, and would have no effect at best, while the worst case scenario is that the US controls 60% of the world's oil, can dictate prices, and until new energy sources are found everyone would be enslaved by the US.

the major thing is, of course, that if the US occupies iran then we lose something. The real point is, whether the cost of resisting US aggression in the gulf is 1.) feasible and 2.) economically sound. that is to say, we do not lose even more by futilely defending a country not critical to our foreign interests.

of course china is not an alliance builder, we only have 2 real allies and neither of them can help us in a major war, but at this current point in time i believe that not using as many non-military methods to have iran not be attacked is a mistake. of course if the US has calculated that attacking iran's cost would be lower than the benefit, then only the iranian people (and whoever decide to sell them weapons) can decide their own fate.
 
.
its a figure of speech. this is not the place for religious talks.

...

This is the place to think what's important. Religion per se is perhaps not. But faith and courage are.

Is it "oil" that's at stake? Apparently Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have sweeter stuff that are more readily available. Iran's oil PRC can do without.

But much, much more than oil is at stake.

...but at this current point in time i believe that not using as many non-military methods to have iran not be attacked is a mistake.

The above I agree with BTW. And there will probably be a moment for the "kitchen sink", too. My view is that there is not a whole lot of "good vs evil" here. But there is plenty of "evil vs lesser evil" going around. The current Iran "benefits" PRC comparatively little especially when you count the "cost". A future Iran may "benefit" you even less.

However, a "fallen" Iran simply means you are finished - geopolitically and "morally" finished ... may not be a bad thing in the grand scheme of things perhaps.

What has to come to pass shall come to pass.

Words won't help you so let's say no more.
 
Last edited:
.
shocked to see so called future superpowers of planetary population(1/3 rd of the world)India and China bending bellow Uncle Sam's might...........leave regional stability..........it is a threat to world's stability.
 
.
I have no idea why this nima guy hasnt been banned yet.
The dude trashes the hell out of every thread with his " LOOOooLL" and " **** ", what are you a high school kid ?
 
.
This is the place to think what's important. Religion per se is perhaps not. But faith and courage are.

Is it "oil" that's at stake? Apparently Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have sweeter stuff that are more readily available. Iran's oil PRC can do without.

But much, much more than oil is at stake.



The above I agree with BTW. And there will probably be a moment for the "kitchen sink", too. My view is that there is not a whole lot of "good vs evil" here. But there is plenty of "evil vs lesser evil" going around. The current Iran "benefits" PRC comparatively little especially when you count the "cost". A future Iran may "benefit" you even less.

However, a "fallen" Iran simply means you are finished - geopolitically and "morally" finished ... may not be a bad thing in the grand scheme of things perhaps.

What has to come to pass shall come to pass.

Words won't help you so let's say no more.

well, not "finished" but weakened, yes. being minorly weakened is a long long way from finished.
 
.
He is right, America will attack Iran anyway the only thing which is stoping them is there nuclear program, once Iran have its nukes i dont think America or Israel will think of attacking Iran:cheers:

this is 4th gen warfare dude,firstly propaganda,then isolation,then sanctions.iran will be attacked but don't know when?,countries like russia,china must save iran
 
.
Back
Top Bottom