The real Iran… it’s not mad mullahs and Revolutionary Guards… it’s the people… just like the USA…
______________________________
The West is stepping up its efforts to tighten a grip on Iran in connection with its nuclear programme. The USA slapped sanctions on foreign state-run banks that clinched oil deals with Tehran and imposed restrictions on the operations of private financial institutions cooperating with the Islamic Republic. On 1 July, the EU’s launching an oil embargo against Iran. Such an abundance of “economic reprisals” against a major player on the world oil market could have lasting consequences. No more new oil from Iran will be available in Europe after 1 July. Countries will have to rely on the Iranian oil that they purchased under previous contracts. The EU has even banned crisis-struck Greece from importing Iranian oil on preferential terms. Washington’s restrictions on the banks that were “spotted” in partnership with Tehran pursue the same agenda… to slash Iranian oil sales.
The restrictions in question have already had a negative effect on the social and economic situation in Iran, which has seen a rise in food prices and a devaluation of the national currency. However, the embargo on Iranian oil led to an increase in oil prices throughout the EU this spring, to the disappointment of millions of European consumers. Oil prices might spike again after 1 July. The EU accounts for 20 percent of Iranian oil exports, this amounts to about 30 million tons (195 million bbl). Europe expects Saudi Arabia to fill the gap. Nevertheless, Iran has the resources to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which oil from Saudi Arabia and LNG from Qatar reaches world markets.
Yevgeni Satanovsky, of the Institute of the Middle East, said, “As for Iran, it could offset its losses by supplying oil to other countries. This means that the embargo might not prove as effective as planned. Some countries, including South Africa, have sharply increased Iranian oil imports. Consumption of Iranian oil hasn’t dropped in Turkey. South Korea cut Iranian oil supplies, but only slightly. Indian companies reduced the consumption of Iranian oil in the country’s state sector, but it’s increased in the private sector. China, even though it cut Iranian oil supplies, has exerted pressure on Iran to get it to slash oil prices so that Beijing could boost the consumption of Iranian oil for the same prices”.
Because of the embargo, Iran will lose 20 percent of the 100 billion USD (3.25 trillion Roubles. 79 billion Euros. 64 billion UK Pounds) it earns from oil exports annually. The loss is far from disastrous. In addition, sanctions will help to spur Iran’s efforts in other areas. Vitaly Bushuyev, General Director of the Institute of Energy Strategy, observed, “The role of Iran in the formation of world oil prices has been exaggerated. No radical fluctuations on the oil market have been predicted for the near future. Oil prices will range between 85 and 110 USD (2,760-3,570 Roubles. 67-87 Euros. 54-70 UK Pounds). Iran may affect that, but its influence won’t go further than causing one-time price volatility within a maximum variation of 3-5 dollars (97-162 Roubles. 2.50-4 Euros. 2-3.25 UK Pounds)”.
In other words, the western sanctions against Iran won’t trigger any upheavals on the world market or an economic collapse in Iran. Instead, they could hit the wallets of ordinary people in Europe. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that unless Iran takes specific steps to dispel the international community’s concerns regarding its nuclear programme, pressure on it will increase, and it’ll become more and more isolated. As an alternative to economic pressure, Washington might carry out air strikes against Iran’s military facilities. In this respect, attempts to exert pressure on Tehran through economic sanctions aren’t the worst option.
29 June 2012
Ilya Kharlamov
Voice of Russia World Service
Obama, the First Communist President?
Tags: 2012 US Presidential election, Affordable Care Act, Anthony Kennedy, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, John Roberts, Mitt Romney, New Deal, Obama, Obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, political commentary, politics, Republican, Republicans, right-wing, Rush Limbaugh, SCOTUS, United States, United States Supreme Court, USA
Look at the above map (from a Repub source, no less)… BHO has 257 electoral votes nailed down, whilst Wafflin’ Willy only has 172 firm votes. BHO only needs 13 votes to win… Willy needs to pick up 98. The only way that Mittens can win is if he picks up ALL states in contention. The present court decision upholding the healthcare act makes that very problematic, at best. The common knowledge was the law was going down, and its survival makes it much more difficult for Mittens (despite the brave public rhetoric). The corporate media writes what its paymasters want it to… I observe that all of the Kochs‘ money and all of the Tea Party‘s men won’t put the GOP in the White House again… ’nuff said.
______________________________
The topmost news recently was the ruling by the US Supreme Court on Thursday that upheld Barack Obama’s controversial healthcare law in a 5-4 vote. The ruling was, to a certain extent, unexpected, because the court has an almost even division along the conservative–liberal lines, and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts cast the vote that determined the decision in favour of the administration. Hours before the ruling, it wasn’t clear whether the Court would uphold or repeal the law in its entirety, or uphold it only partly. The Wall Street Journal, citing its sources in Obama’s inner circle, even stated that President Obama had prepared three speeches in anticipation of the ruling. Luckily, for him, he had to stick to the most preferred one. The ruling won wide recognition as a triumph for President Obama, who put much of the labours of his presidency into this particular law. Nevertheless, it still keeps open the question of what impact the ruling will have on the 6 November elections.
Probably, it’s impossible to go into all the details of the law in a short commentary, but a précis suggests that it provided medical insurance to 30 million people presently uncovered by any health insurance plan. To speak concisely, it means that all Americans will have access to medical care… no matter what their financial status. This, in turn, poses a question. Should those who can afford medical care pay for those who can’t? This reminds of is the motto formulated in the Communist Manifesto and attempted in the Soviet Union… “take and divide”. In March, the Congressional Budget Office calculated the overall cost of the new law’s implementation over the next 10 years as 1.76 trillion USD (57.1 trillion Roubles. 1.39 trillion Euros. 1.12 trillion UK Pounds), and this, in fact, means additional taxation on the middle class in order to support the poor.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, the peculiar thing about the American public’s reaction to the law is that the majority of Americans oppose the law even though they strongly support most of its provisions. This opens the possibility for it to become one of the most hotly-contested topics in the months to come during the run-up to the 6 November election. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already vowed that he will make the issue central in his campaign, saying shortly after the court’s decision, “Our mission is clear: If we’re going to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama”.
His supporters have already worked out plans to intensify their ad campaign, specially targeting “swing” states, which are likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election. In addition, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives is going to try to repeal the law in an 11 July vote. Observers regard the latter move as purely political; it’ll lack any impact on the law itself… the Democratic Senate is sure to block any move by the House aimed at the repeal of their much-cherished achievement.
Therefore, some commentators view the Supreme Court’s ruling as a new boost for conservatives. Reuters cites a Romney adviser as saying, “This is great politically. Bad for the country, but great politically”. The liberal media expressed a totally different sentiment; they’re overjoyed. Some commentators (already sure of Obama’s re-election) state that now that the law’s here to stay, Obama has every chances to be remembered in history as the president who changed the course of the nation. They may be right. In 2008, Obama became the first black president. After supporting single-sex marriages, he received the title of “the first gay president”. Now, he has a chance to win the label of “the first communist president”, which means that he’s a historical figure who changed the course of America… the way Lenin changed the course of Russia about a century ago.
29 June 2012
Boris Volkhonsky
Voice of Russia World Service
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_06_29/79722810/
Editor’s Note:
Note this:
This isn’t what the lying propagandists at Fox News mean when they label Obama a “socialist”. Ponder this… most Russians view Vladimir Ilyich as a positive figure. NO… they don’t believe that he was a “nice” man or that he was a “democrat” or that they agree with his personal or political ideology… they mean that V I Lenin was a great historical figure who changed Russia’s course permanently. Russia (and the Church) would not be what they are today without this great figure.
Love him or hate him, he was one of the seminal figures of the 20th century. The same would be true of Obama if he manages to defeat the Radical Right and preserve the Affordable Care Act. That would break the back of the corporate greedsters who’ve run the country since the time of Slobberin’ Ronnie… and start the clock ticking on the New Deal again. American income was becoming more and more equalised up until 1981… it was the natural outcome of New Deal policies, despite such bumps in the road as Taft-Hartley. The last thirty years (including Bubba, by the way) was an attempt to resurrect Gilded Age America… with all of its inequality, with all of its suffering, and with all of its naked and unashamed brutality.
This upcoming election is, indeed, one of the major ones in our history. Let’s see… the SEMINAL elections were 1800, 1828, 1860, 1904, 1932, and 1980. The gap between “defining” elections ranges from 28 and 48 years, and 1980 was 32 years ago… the exact same gap as that between TR’s Square Deal and FDR’s New Deal. The GOP is attempting to hold the ramparts of Slobberin’ Ronnie’s Raw Deal. If it loses the election this autumn, it may spell the end of the present GOP… as 1932 saw the end of the Democratic Party as the conservative state’s rights party. That is, it won’t die, but the Grover Norquists, King Rushs, and Dropout Scott Walkers may just well find themselves ideologues without a base. Now, that’s something worth cracking a bottle open for…
One last thing… do note that the SCOTUS justice who cast the deciding vote for the majority WASN’T Anthony Kennedy, as everyone thought. It was John Roberts… that isn’t a good omen for the GOP in the election. Shall John Roberts turn into an Earl Warren? Warren was considered “conservative”, then, changed course on the court. Stranger things HAVE happened. Bet on RED, kids, and put that red rose (the international socialist symbol) in your lapel…
BMD