The following piece is from [Time Magazine]. Its a pretty good article on how Iran actually has the upper hand in the middle east and not the US or Israel.

Quote »

If wasn't clear before it should be now: the Bush administration can't afford to attack Iran. With gas already at $4 a gallon and rising almost every day, Iran figuratively and literally has the United States over a barrel. As much as the administration is tempted, it is not about to test Iran's promise to "explode" the Middle East if it is attacked. The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets. One oil speculator told me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. I asked him if Iran is right, what does that mean? "Four dollar a gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas." In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq—our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran. The way Fars put it: "In Iraq, fighters would rise up in solidarity with each other and begin ... making the Tet Offensive in 1968 Vietnam." If this all sounds very alarming, Iran meant it to, and it seems to be working. On Tuesday Bush was talking about the prospect of new sanctions rather than attacking. Which leaves Israel. Are the Israelis, who have a lot more on their minds than the price of gas in the United States, going to launch a pre-emptive attack? One hard and fast rule in the Middle East is never rule out Israel's readiness to turn the table over. But an Israeli hawk on Iran, with close ties to Israel's Ministry of Defense, told me to forget about it. "There's not a chance Israel will do anything. Maybe there's a window after the American elections and the new president but even that's doubtful. Washington does not have the stomach for another war." Israel cannot attack or contain Iran on its own; it needs the full military might of the United States behind it. So in the meantime Israel can only huff and puff, hoping new sanctions on Iran will do the trick.

Modified by George Knighton at 11:25 PM 6/15/2008

Quote, originally posted by exekiel198 »

do you have low self esteem? i heard people with tattoos have low self esteem

Buy my stuff...motor swap, turbo kit and a flywheel...
http://www.hondamarketplace.com/zerothread/2168910

12.9 @ 108...9ibs

Not many. Most Americans have made driving a necessity in their lives. Ignorant? Yes, but until it his people in their pocketbooks they won't adapt.

myspace.com/nicknelson

Link? Proof? Even a good story?

Quote, originally posted by exekiel198 »

do you have low self esteem? i heard people with tattoos have low self esteem

Buy my stuff...motor swap, turbo kit and a flywheel...
http://www.hondamarketplace.com/zerothread/2168910

12.9 @ 108...9ibs

Your absolulty wrong, if iran did fire missiles, they would probally hit there targets, ships are the easiest things to attack especially oil tankers, You get one hit, and your done, think about it, couple tons of oil? yeah your screwed.

00 Civic Si ( retired)

And don't forget that there's more than one way to block the Straits.

Them even attempting to attack tankers would send the prices soaring. If you owned an oil tanker would you risk sending it into port under constant missile fire because you were told by the American's that you "probably" won't take a hit? There would be tons of supply line disruption just on the act alone regardless if the missiles hit a large number of targets.

The Revolution has just begun.

Exactly. There doesn't have to actually be a missile hitting the tankers to actually drive prices up. Just the threat alone would be enough to drive the prices up because the prices are based on speculation.

It's not as much as you probably think.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Yes I know we don't get the majority of oil from them but this isn't Krispy Kreme donuts we are talking about. Cutting back any percent of such an essential good drives prices up, period, ESPECIALLY when you factor in market speculation. They are going to jump at any little tidbit that will allow them to raise prices.

Modified by ActiveAero at 6:35 AM 6/17/2008

The Revolution has just begun.

Over the same period last week oil futures fell while gas prces increased.

This isn't market hype, this is opportunism. I firmly believe the gas companies are just trying to see how much we WILL pay.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Regardless of if they are, such a crisis would put threat on the overall supply flow. Don't you think that alone would have heavy impact on pricing per a barrel?

Depends on how this latest Texas push goes. We have a TON of proven reserves here at home. We could actually be a net exporter and join Opec if we didn't gobble up what we have in the ground.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

http://i22.photobucket.com/alb...3.jpg

An interesting point is this push to have California along with others drill on their coastlines for what essentially makes up 3% when pricing currently isn't a supply issue. Then on that same point the other states cry about placing nuclear power plants in their backyards.

That's not a huge deficit to make up when you compare the proven reserves we have. And those still unproven/unresearched.

Production would also be a non-issue as we could easily ramp that up. Saudi only produces 8.8 MBD and we created a LOT of that infrastructure for them. SA and Russia's production volume is so large they'll be out LONG before Canada(our biggest supplier).

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Since we decided to hold back so many times, either because we wanted to preserve a pristine wilderness or because the price of oil was not high enough to warrant production in an expensive place, it will now take many years to get going on any of this.

That we can prove there is still oil in the ground or in the sands in North America is not an item that should deter us from the research of alternate methods of propelling our little vehicles around America.

We need to set speed full ahead and not get diverted by spending much money at all looking for more oil in North America. We already know it's there, but it would take too long to get it out. We'd have hydrogen on the road, affordably, before we got that oil out, IMHO.

I was just saying that Iran having us over any kind of barrel is a bit far fetched and I was trying to use some hypotheticals to illustrate that point.

The hippies will never allow us to drill off the California coast ever again. lol

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” -Albert Einstein

Think you'd be surprised. The harsher the situation gets on people the more open they will become. The silly thing about it all is that it's being pushed as an election issue more so then a solution. The problem in all of this was never a supply issue (at the moment), not to mention it will take years to drill, in addition to our refinery limitations as is.

BTW, Saudi produces about 10.8 MBD.

Quote, originally posted by CNBC »

The nation's current total capacity of 11.3 million barrels per day is expected to increase to 12.5 million barrels per day, Al-Muhanna said. That is much more than the Saudi's previously believed capacity of 10.8 million barrels per day.

Modified by Kookz at 8:51 PM 6/21/2008

Modified by Kookz at 8:53 PM 6/21/2008