Editorials & Other Articles

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts) Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:08 AM Sep 2012

REPORT: The World's Largest Oil Trader Is Ignoring Sanctions And Trading With Iran

(Reuters) - Vitol, the world's largest oil trader, is buying and selling Iranian fuel oil, undermining Western efforts to choke the flow of petrodollars to Tehran and put pressure on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Vitol last month bought 2 million barrels of fuel oil, used for power generation, from Iran and offered it to Chinese traders, Reuters established in interviews with 10 oil trading, industry and shipping sources in Southeast Asia, China and the Middle East. A spokesman for Vitol declined to comment.

Swiss-based Vitol is not obliged to comply with a ban imposed in July by the European Union on trading oil with Iran because Switzerland decided not to match EU and U.S. sanctions against Tehran.

The company earlier in the year stopped trading Iranian crude oil from its main European offices before the July 1 EU embargo deadline. But the trading sources said it has continued to deal in Iranian fuel oil from the Middle East.

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-vitol-oil-trading-with-iran-2012-9

Part of the background to Switzerland not supporting sanction against Iran could be the major gas contract signed 5 years ago by both countries.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

REPORT: The World's Largest Oil Trader Is Ignoring Sanctions And Trading With Iran (Original Post) dipsydoodle Sep 2012 OP

1. So long as oil has real value, and sanctions don't, there will be a market for Iran's oil. leveymg Sep 2012 #1

(2) is wrong - completely and absolutely wrong. nt bananas Sep 2012 #5

Why? Your personal prejudices aren't a basis for moral judgements. leveymg Sep 2012 #6

We have to abolish nuclear weapons worldwide. bananas Sep 2012 #7

Maybe we should set a good example first, just keep a couple for emergencies. nt bemildred Sep 2012 #8

Former Commander of U.S. Nuclear Forces Calls for Large Cut in Warheads bananas Sep 2012 #9

There you go, see? bemildred Sep 2012 #10

I post this stuff all the time - Air Force Chief of Staff joined the call for cuts in August bananas Sep 2012 #11

Here's a post about Plowshares, maybe you missed it bananas Sep 2012 #13

Yes, we are doing better, much better, but we still have thousands. bemildred Sep 2012 #14

Then logic dictates that those who actually have nuclear weapons should get rid of them. leveymg Sep 2012 #12

See, this is the problem with empty threats, people start ignoring you. bemildred Sep 2012 #2

If Palin was President dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #3

Good! cpwm17 Sep 2012 #4

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

1. 1. So long as oil has real value, and sanctions don't, there will be a market for Iran's oil.

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:49 AM

Sep 2012

2. So long as the US and Israel maintain their own nuclear arsenals, there is no moral basis for sanctions on Iran for developing its own deterrent capability.

These things seem self-evident.

bananas

(27,509 posts)

5. (2) is wrong - completely and absolutely wrong. nt

Reply to leveymg (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:36 PM

Sep 2012

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

6. Why? Your personal prejudices aren't a basis for moral judgements.

Reply to bananas (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:41 PM

Sep 2012

Iran certainly has more to fear from an attack by the US and Israel than the other way around, so perhaps they have a better moral claim to a deterrent. I know you disagree, but please respond to the point that was made.

bananas

(27,509 posts)

7. We have to abolish nuclear weapons worldwide.

Reply to leveymg (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:03 PM

Sep 2012

This is recognized in the NPT,
it's why Obama was unanimously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Valerie Plame became outspoken about it.
Plowshares members continually go to jail protesting the immorality of nuclear weapons.

The countries with nuclear weapons have to reduce to minimum credible deterrent, then get rid of them completely.
The countries which don't have nuclear weapons have to refrain from obtaining them.

There are a wide range of reasons why nuclear weapons are so bad, from the immorality of using weapons designed to indiscriminately mass murder innocent non-combatant civilians, to the existential threat to human civilization - nuclear war is frequently used as an example of the answer to the Fermi paradox.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

8. Maybe we should set a good example first, just keep a couple for emergencies. nt

Reply to bananas (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:05 PM

Sep 2012

bananas

(27,509 posts)

9. Former Commander of U.S. Nuclear Forces Calls for Large Cut in Warheads

Reply to bemildred (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:23 PM

Sep 2012

"he was the top officer at the United States Strategic Command, overseeing the entire nuclear arsenal"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/cartwright-key-retired-general-backs-large-us-nuclear-reduction.html?_r=0

Former Commander of U.S. Nuclear Forces Calls for Large Cut in Warheads
By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — Gen. James E. Cartwright, the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former commander of the United States’ nuclear forces, is adding his voice to those who are calling for a drastic reduction in the number of nuclear warheads below the levels set by agreements with Russia.

General Cartwright said that the United States’ nuclear deterrence could be guaranteed with a total arsenal of 900 warheads, and with only half of them deployed at any one time. Even those in the field would be taken off hair triggers, requiring 24 to 72 hours for launching, to reduce the chance of accidental war.

That arsenal would be a significant cut from the current agreement to limit Russia and the United States to 1,550 deployed warheads each, down from 2,200, within six years. Under the New Start agreement, thousands more warheads can be kept in storage as a backup force, and the restrictions do not apply to hundreds of short-range nuclear weapons in the American and Russian arsenals.

<snip>

The proposals are contained in a report to be issued Wednesday by Global Zero, a nuclear policy organization, signed by General Cartwright and several senior national security figures, including Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska; Thomas R. Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and Gen. John J. Sheehan, who held senior NATO positions before retiring from active duty.

General Cartwright’s leading role in the study is expected to give heft to the proposals; he was the top officer at the United States Strategic Command, overseeing the entire nuclear arsenal. The report’s proposals also may help shape the election-year debate on national security.

<snip>

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

10. There you go, see?

Reply to bananas (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:26 PM

Sep 2012

Keep doing that, pretty soon you will start to have some credibility again on the subject.

bananas

(27,509 posts)

11. I post this stuff all the time - Air Force Chief of Staff joined the call for cuts in August

Reply to bemildred (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:13 PM

Sep 2012

Posted by yours truly in LBN - got 11 recs, sent to the greatest page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014186429

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 08:05 AM
bananas (18,707 posts)

US general asks cut in nuclear stockpile
Source: Boston Globe

The Pentagon calls the stockpile an “active reserve.” Others call it a hidden nuclear arsenal. International arms control treaties do not apply to it and officials rarely discuss it publicly. But now, the nation’s backup supply of nuclear weapons may be next up for major cuts.

For the first time a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is suggesting the United States’ nuclear weapons reserve is too large and becoming too expensive to maintain.

“We have more backup systems in terms of weapons systems than we actually have deployed,” General Norton A. Schwartz, chief of staff of the Air Force, told the Globe in a recent interview. “Some of that is a reasonable hedge there is probably room for reductions.’’

The call by Schwartz to consider cutting the stockpile is supported by the findings of a report cowritten in May by retired Marine Corps General James Cartright, who had been in charge of all nuclear weapons. The report recommended that the United States during the next 10 years reduce its nuclear force to a total of 900 weapons, half of them on alert and half in reserve.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/08/06/top_air_force_officer_backup_supply_of_nuclear_warheads_larger_than_needed/

bananas

(27,509 posts)

13. Here's a post about Plowshares, maybe you missed it

Reply to bemildred (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:19 PM

Sep 2012

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person posting about this stuff.
From back in July:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014181958

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:12 PM
bananas (18,707 posts)

More details of stunning Y-12 break-in; protesters offered bread to guards
Source: Knoxville News Sentinel

Emerging accounts of what took place in Saturday's predawn hours at Y-12 are surely unlike any of the threat scenarios regularly tested during security exercises at the government installation. It apparently was a surreal scene inside the nuclear weapons plant.

<snip>

Instead, three aging peaceniks were hanging banners in the dark, splashing blood, and painting messages on the plant's pride-and-joy storage facility, a $549 million fortress which contains the nation's primary supply of bomb-grade uranium.

<snip>

Their words and actions were not that unusual. They were standard fare for many protests staged around the U.S. and beyond. What was unusual was where these acts took place — the inner sanctum of the Oak Ridge weapons facility — which heretofore had been portrayed as impenetrable and deadly dangerous to unauthorized visitors.

<snip>

The three protesters identified themselves as "Transform Now Plowshares," a title given to their direct action at Y-12.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jul/31/more-details-of-stunning-y-12-break-in-offered/

[hr]
Congratulations to the "three aging peaceniks" for getting their message into one of the highest-security nuclear weapons sites in the world!

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

14. Yes, we are doing better, much better, but we still have thousands.

Reply to bananas (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:26 PM

Sep 2012

Great big ones too. And this is largely just cost cutting so far, not really committed to radical reduction or elimination by any means.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

12. Then logic dictates that those who actually have nuclear weapons should get rid of them.

Reply to bananas (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:16 PM

Sep 2012

And, those who have them but won't admit it should declare their arsenals, and get rid of them.

And, before anything else can be done, that latter country should stop threatening to use them.

By your logic that nuclear weapons are bad, isn't the country with the most the worst?

As for reduction, in all things proportionality - when the US, Israel, and Pakistan (and the rest) all eliminate 100% of their nuclear arsenals and programs, Iran will be glad to do the same.

So, when is Israel going to decommission its reactors at Dimona, demilitarize its last nuclear warhead, and turn it into a tractor?