Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just wondering what the context is for the governor of MN to be fielding questions on Isreal/Iran
 
 

Well, he was the candidate for VP just a few months ago. Not a totally unfair question.
Posted
11 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I heard one Iranian chanting and saw water bottles being thrown. 

That's great it is going to set a precedent that you throw a bunch of stuff on the field and endanger athletes to get what you want.

(Could not help myself, sorry)

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think there will be any negotiations, Israel will just decide when they are done. 

This conflict has been building for decades. It was almost certainly always going to end with full on war between the two countries. 

I'm of the firm belief, this one goes all the way as Israel knows Iran will continue on their enrichment program no matter what is "agreed upon" in any settlement. Israel is correct in that assessment. 

I think to hurt them most Israel ultimately hits ends up hitting they're funding element which is their OG refinery. 

But that's just my instinct not based on any particular insight other than watching this unfold since I was a child.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think there will be any negotiations, Israel will just decide when they are done. 

Judging from Gaza, it's gonna be WHILE before they decide they're done I'm guessing

Posted
58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Some new weapons are giving it the ability to economically counter mass drone threats, APKWS II (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II) is a cheap rocket with a laser guided kit added that gives it some air-to-air chops. You can fit them in pods so a single fighter can carry dozens. And they only cost like $20k-30k per shot, which actually makes them win price exchange with drones like the Shahed (cost estimates between $50k and $200k). And a fighter wing can actually counter a drone swarm in single sortie rather than having to go back and re-arm. These are already in service with F-16s. 

 

And when you’re too close for missiles…

Posted

What with China and Russia's interest in Iranian technology and resources, this really does have all the makings for a scope creep of theatre and building up to a global conflict

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

This conflict has been building for decades. It was almost certainly always going to end with full on war between the two countries. 

I'm of the firm belief, this one goes all the way as Israel knows Iran will continue on their enrichment program no matter what is "agreed upon" in any settlement. Israel is correct in that assessment. 

I think to hurt them most Israel ultimately hits ends up hitting they're funding element which is their OG refinery. 

But that's just my instinct not based on any particular insight other than watching this unfold since I was a child.

I think at some point Israel knocks off the Iranian leadership and hopes some kind of revolution kicks in and the radicals are thrown out.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Russia is impotent and direct conflict with the West doesn’t appear to be China’s style.

Yeah, it won't spread beyond Iran/Israel.  Russia can't fuck with Israel and can't even defend Iran.

I would have been worried had any other Muslim nations sided with Iran (outside of Yemen) but they are more than content to see Iran wrecked.  I'm curious what countries are letting Israeli aircraft fly over them.

26 minutes ago, General Specific said:

Oh no, SECs strongly worded letter and fine is going to send the Ayatollah into a fit of rage! We are doomed!!1!

Lichtenstein will be penalized.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Therefore the US and Israel would never let it occur. I can’t believe you’re this pedantic. 

Let it go. Jesus. 

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

I’m sorry Walz made an incredibly stupid comment and you bent over backwards supporting it. China?  JFC. 

What is wrong with you?

Posted
5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think at some point Israel knocks off the Iranian leadership and hopes some kind of revolution kicks in and the radicals are thrown out.

One is plan A one is plan B, imo, but I agree that is certainly an option.

My thinking from Israeli perspective, knocking out the OG kills the money supply. Killing the money supply cuts out the heart of the Hyrda. Killing current leaders leaves a vacuum that may well be filled by another similar Hydra. 

Your plan or Plan B if you prefer, imo, leaves a much higher risk for Israel long term, plan A reduces means for military supply, a funding source for another head of the Hydra and potential allows the people of the region to take over as their is no direct funding source for caliphate regime. 

But.. that's me looking at it from a tactical position and only Israeli interest. Outside influences are obviously going to have an effect in the broad terms and many of those won't want the OG attacked for many various reasons.

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

One is plan A one is plan B, imo, but I agree that is certainly an option.

My thinking from Israeli perspective, knocking out the OG kills the money supply. Killing the money supply cuts out the heart of the Hyrda. Killing current leaders leaves a vacuum that may well be filled by another similar Hydra. 

Your plan or Plan B if you prefer, imo, leaves a much higher risk for Israel long term, plan A reduces means for military supply, a funding source for another head of the Hydra and potential allows the people of the region to take over as their is no direct funding source for caliphate regime. 

But.. that's me looking at it from a tactical position and only Israeli interest. Outside influences are obviously going to have an effect in the broad terms and many of those won't want the OG attacked for many various reasons.

Girl Why Dont We Have Both GIF

As long as the religious nuts are in power, Israel will be their bogeyman, and it feels like they will be even more inclined to get nukes built.

And they are even more isolated after Syria fell.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Russia is impotent and direct conflict with the West doesn’t appear to be China’s style.

Direct conflict with the west is not beneficial for China financially, at least certainly near term. At the end of the day, conflict come down to control and money. While China absolutely worships control (like all of them), they certainly recognize how much money can influence it.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Girl Why Dont We Have Both GIF

As long as the religious nuts are in power, Israel will be their bogeyman, and it feels like they will be even more inclined to get nukes built.

And they are even more isolated after Syria fell.

Hey man, I'm personally absolutely for plan C. That removes a big problem piece off the board. Helps Israel and the US immensely long term and serves to help Ukraine dramatically while weaking Russia/Putin. Speaking purely from a selfish point of view, I'm good with that in all aspects.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Eh, there’s a lot of geography and capability limits that keep this within a certain boundary on the right, particularly with Hezbollah incapacitated and Hamas to ground.  By necessity this is going to be likely be restricted to air strikes and small unit actions in support. Israel said this will be a few weeks and I tend to believe them. 
 

Astonishing to see how Iran has screwed the poodle over decades: diverting resources to proxies that now won’t show up, doubling down on isolating themselves regionally, pursuing a rhetorical strategy of insanity.

Its important to remember that neither Iran or Israel has any strategic imperative to be at each other’s throats with three borders between them and no real core interests at stake.  Israel is pragmatic in the extreme outside of Palestine/Lebanon/Syrian border and this has all been driven by Iranian ideological motivators.  Even less than Jew/Zionist hate, its been Iran’s obsession with posing as the real ideological and geopolitical leader within the Islamic world, which is in itself stupidly ideological.  It’s just decades of clerical-military fusion leading to collective brain damage. 
 

Syria is a good counter-example where the leader of an al-Qaeda affiliate just announced he wanted to be cool now and the entire world lined up to give money and normalized relations. Iran could have managed to detente with some of their satans at any time and wouldn’t be here. 

Hopefully Israel drops a few on the Shahed factory.  Another place where Iran had no strategic imperative or benefit— helping to kill Ukrainians.  

I agree with all your points. Perhaps I'm just hope casting to what I selfishly believe is best for a lot of different aspects. I think hitting OG and the leadership is also best for the people of Iran long term not just western and Israel interests. Removing the funding keeps a different caliphate from just moving in, taking it over and being basically back where we started.

Admittedly, my position is a simplistic one.

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

I agree with all your points. Perhaps I'm just hope casting to what I selfishly believe is best for a lot of different aspects. I think hitting OG and the leadership is also best for the people of Iran long term not just western and Israel interests. Removing the funding keeps a different caliphate from just moving in, taking it over and being basically back where we started.

Admittedly, my position is a simplistic one.

Yeah, and if the OG is out of the equation, whoever comes into power is going to have to play nice with the rest of the world.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, and if the OG is out of the equation, whoever comes into power is going to have to play nice with the rest of the world.

Yep! I a purely hypothetical if we recognize it, obviously Israel does. If it weren't for outside influencers, I'd be 100% certain that would be the path Israel would take. It comes down to what the Israeli government believes the world influences will let them get away with in conflict. However, regardless of outside influence, I think Israel has passed the point of negotiations and sees this as the best time given current global environment. (Yes, absolutely including the current POTUS as being a positive in their favor) 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
33 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Russia is impotent and direct conflict with the West doesn’t appear to be China’s style.

But they could decide now is an opportune time to get a little more aggressive in the South China Sea and see how spicy things get.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

You live in fantasy land. I mean it is quite astounding. 

Dude, you are adding nothing to what is a really good and informative discussion going on in this thread. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
What is wrong with you?

The better question is what is wrong with you? We know who and what he is, and a good number of us put that blathering idiot on ignore long ago. Why the rest of you can’t do the same is beyond comprehension at this point; so don’t bitch about him if you’re going to continue to engage
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

Absolutely nothing apart from reading defenses of an asinine suggestion in effort to be contrarian. And you ask what’s wrong with me

Calm the fuck down. We were approaching the question from different perspectives. I was looking at purely from a technical "get it done" perspective of who can mediate. I wasn't suggesting who should or analyzing political implications. I understand your points generally and already said I agreed it wouldn't be good for the US. I don't know what else you want. Go fucking take a Xanax or something. Your brain fucking turns off and you go rage mode whenever Israel is mentioned. 

Posted
13 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

@Hitch

Unfortunately this is going to get worse for everyone. 

Yep, although that hit was mostly symbolic. Once I heard Iran was striking civilian centers I knew this was heading to total war. 

28 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It has nothing to do with Israel. There is no perspective where China leading a peace negotiation makes sense. It’s an incredibly naive and dumb comment. You’re not dumb, and you’re saying this to be contrarian. Walz made an off the cuff comment. You’re actually rationalizing his comment. 

I agree with you and think you’ve made a solid argument, but we need to move on here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Yep, although that hit was mostly symbolic. Once I heard Iran was striking civilian centers I knew this was heading to total war. 

Page 2 of the Luftwaffe handbook.

Posted (edited)

Based on my Reuters feed, the tone and wording certainly appears to be that Israel is all in. I think it demonstrates a clear willingness (and plans) to move forward with Plan B (Killing all Iranian Regime leaders) and perhaps Plan A (Hitting OG), but it could be my own confirmation bias.

Spoiler

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear programme possibly by years but rejected international calls for restraint, saying the attack would be intensified.

"We will hit every site and every target of the Ayatollahs' regime, and what they have felt so far is nothing compared with what they will be handed in the coming days," he said in a video message.

"If (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front, Tehran will burn," Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said.

Reuters Link to comments above

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Behind a paywall:

Spoiler

Live Updates: Israel Expands Attack to Include Iran’s Oil and Gas Industry

Both countries kept up airstrikes on each other for a second day, fueling fears of a wider conflict that could draw in the United States and other major powers.

Israel widened its targets in Iran on Saturday to strike at oil and gas installations, as leaders of both countries vowed to intensify their attacks despite international pleas for de-escalation.

 

In sweeping attacks that started early Friday, Israel focused on Iranian nuclear sites, air defenses and military targets. But the strikes on Saturday went a step further, targeting an energy industry that is vital to Iran’s economy. Israeli strikes also appeared to focus on Tehran, the Iranian capital, taking out the city’s air defenses.

NY Times Paywall Article

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted

A few new things...

1. Israel has been fairly restrained "so far" vs the Iranaian economic targets. Not sure how long it stays that way.

2. Estimates are that before this all started, Iran had approximately 2,200 ballistic missiles. Of those, there are reports of 200+ that have already been launched and at least that (with estimates much higher) being destroyed in the initial round of air strikes. Being pessimistic, Iran has less than 20 sets of active large-scale strikes. Essentially Israel knows that Iran has only so many mass strikes available. 

3. The drone strikes (a la the Ukrainian truck carrier approach) has had a large enough impact that Iran has in essence, grounded truck traffic in most of the country. To me that is fucking wild. 

4. Lots of non-military adjacent politicians and their families are heading to Russia right now. Not a major surprise, but interesting to see them accept that Israel has operational control of the air and can attack all cities at will. This forces them to either live in bunkers for the foreseeable future or pull out to Russia, with many doing the latter. 

5. The wild idea of China being an impartial arbitrator in all of this ignores the simple fact that they (and India) are a major destination for Iranian crude and natural gas shipments from the fabled "ghost fleets. That being said, they actually might be a good choice because their interests align with Iran only if the Iranian refineries still exist. That would put an impetus on Iran to negotiate if their major destination of exports for hard currency is the one trying to be the middleman in this situation. 

6. The BBC reports that Israel has been "ineffective" in stopping refinement capabilities in the more hardened facilities is partially true. That being said, I expect Israel to flatten everything they can and then go from there. This is why they keep pushing for US involvement because they do t have an airframe that can deliver the knockout blow to these hardened facilities. I do wonder at some point if we see Israeli troops on the ground in a few specific sites, just to finish the job. 

7. It is staggering how the rest of the big players in the ME are just staying out of this. Not a peep out of Egypt, Saudi and Jordan are allowing fly overs. Iraq is trying to be as noncommittal as their current situation allows them. I am really surprised we have not seen more blowback from the rest of the ME. Outside of the rogue groups within Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, causing some issues, this has been extremely localized. In truth, I am stunned....

8. Iran can still threaten to try and close the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, but with how the rest of the ME has reacted so far, I would be surprised if they allow anything more than a token disturbance to happen.. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
13 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

So apparently most of the Iron Dome components are made in the US. Makes sense. Seems like it would be the highest priority target for Iran if more of the manufacturing was in Israel. 

Iron Dome is really good against rocket and mortar fire from Iranian proxies. It has shit all to do with defending against Iran's long range ballistic missiles. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, hornbri said:

And that’s fair, they may be the biggest party that can do this. 

But let’s also remember they will do whatever they can to undermine US interests in the process. 

Oh and allow Iran to have nukes in exchange for cheap oil and gas to China. Hell, China may even supply the nukes. Great fucking idea for Israel and the west.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

That's a given. China is going to look to fill the power vacuum we've left by withdrawing a lot our soft power projection assets. 

Back to missile defense, BBC did a decent overview last year of Israel's assets (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20385306)

The full article is worth a read for anyone looking for some good information. But I think this is most helpful:

Range and altitude of Israel's missile systems, including Thaad (October 2024)

US promise to deploy THAAD to Israel was huge. I believe they now have 2 batteries in country (a cool billion dollars per battery). 

Did they at least say thank you and wear a suit to pick them up?

Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Astonishing to see how Iran has screwed the poodle over decades: diverting resources to proxies that now won’t show up, doubling down on isolating themselves regionally, pursuing a rhetorical strategy of insanity.

Its important to remember that neither Iran or Israel has any strategic imperative to be at each other’s throats with three borders between them and no real core interests at stake.  Israel is pragmatic in the extreme outside of Palestine/Lebanon/Syrian border and this has all been driven by Iranian ideological motivators.  Even less than Jew/Zionist hate, its been Iran’s obsession with posing as the real ideological and geopolitical leader within the Islamic world, which is in itself stupidly ideological.  It’s just decades of clerical-military fusion leading to collective brain damage. 

Yeah I guess this is true if you just simply refuse to recognize that the conquest of Iran's natural resources has been the golden goose of American Middle East foreign policy since WW2. No reason to look into exactly why and how Iran's government ended up a theocratic freak show. Persians must just have a bone in their brain that makes them need to be this way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

how did two F35's get shot down ? 

mind you, israel flies an upgraded f35

They haven't been. At least no reliable sources have confirmed it. It is also unlikely because Israel has been operating its non stealth planes in Iranian airspace. Many of those were loaded out with fairly close range ground attack munitions like JDAMs. If Iran had downed an F35, you'd expect many more reports of downed 4th gen aircraft. We haven't seen that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, he was the candidate for VP just a few months ago. Not a totally unfair question.

I mean he lost so

Edited by Sawbonz
Point being why are people here arguing about what was said when his answer really doesn’t matter
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, it won't spread beyond Iran/Israel.  Russia can't fuck with Israel and can't even defend Iran.

I would have been worried had any other Muslim nations sided with Iran (outside of Yemen) but they are more than content to see Iran wrecked.  I'm curious what countries are letting Israeli aircraft fly over them.

Lichtenstein will be penalized.

image.thumb.jpeg.e05fe4bdc2734396b4dbd65d2b533316.jpeg

  • Haha 5
Posted
3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

how did two F35's get shot down ? 

mind you, israel flies an upgraded f35

You can take it to the bank that the Iranians would be touting pictures of the wreckage of they had shot down an Adir. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Expand on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

  • (almost) all production,
  • Refining,
  • transport and
  • (only international) marketing

of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

  1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
  2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

  • (almost) all production,
  • Refining,
  • transport and
  • (only international) marketing

of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

  1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
  2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

 

I should get this but failed:

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

Iran owned 50%, the West owned 50% divided (40% US oil companies, 40% Iran-UK oil companies, 14 percent Dutch, and 6% French). So basically the largest oil companies in the world and France owned 50% and would do all the exploration and development. Overall, it looks to be a WWII remnant. From what I remember from textbooks was that the UK and Russia were both there after WWII, after 6 months the UK started to leave but the Soviets remained. What happened after that?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...