Terrorism Continues in UK

Another attack occurred Saturday at Glasgow Airport in Scotland.

My prayers are with the Brits.

Rule Brittania!!!

In other news, some idiot here in Kansas City decided to set off a rather large firework(?) strapped to a remote control car in the parking garage at the Ranch Mart Mall. The question mark is because they are not sure exactly what the explosive was. In the midst of attacks in Europe, this was either the most stupid, "I just want to see how loud the explosion will sound in a parking garage." Or, this was someone wanting to add a little to the terror after these attacks and this was the best tools he had available.

Unless the guy's finger prints are in a database somewhere, we may never know.

But, stupid people have started wars. Worse, stupid people may start something here that they can't finish.

Waiting for one of the local news organizations to post up a link.

Summary only...

We Are At War

And these are little reminders of that fact.

We were just having a discussion at Blackfive not many days ago about "escalation of war". A telling point, that continues to be missed by the "peace at all cost" folks is that we are not the only ones who can escalate war.

Nor is the simplistic phrase, "Fight them there so we don't fight them here" interpreted exactly as it should be. I am sure that there will be many outraged cries, once again, that Iraq has created terrorists who are coming back to England, or Europe or the United States. Many will point out that this phrase is false. The problem is that this simplistic slogan does not lend to the reality.

We must fight them there because that is where terrorism has started (to wit, in the Middle East), where it is prevalent and where it must die in order for our nation and others to be safe. There is nothing we can "fight" here or do here that ends the Islamist Salafist ideology. Aside from capitulate to their demands and some how "change" our foreign policy. Other than that, there is no "fighting" them here, in the sense that they can be defeated on our shores.

But, we are at war. Which means that our land, our nation, can be and probably will be attacked again.

Summary only...

Michael Yon: Death or Glory

Michael Yon continues his series on our British Allies: Death Glory

American soldiers think our press is bad to them, but we get off light compared to the Brits. One British soldier told me that when he made a journey of several hours across London, in uniform, not a single person acknowledged him. I said he should go to America where British soldiers are always welcome.

The Brits are in for a scorching summer in the deserts of Maysan Province. By the time I left, the sleeping bags weren’t necessary, though nights were cool. The soldiers are living out there on cots under mosquito nets, and their outhouse is a shovel. This past winter, the rains and cold created an opponent in the form of mud. The Iraqi mud—I know it well—is a special kind that sticks to boots and adds about five pounds to each foot.

Summary only...

Our Allies in Afghanistan and Iraq

Royal Engineers Build Bases for Afghan Troops

Royal Engineers from 26 Engineer Regiment have been making the town of Sangin in northern Helmand, Afghanistan, more secure by constructing three company-sized patrol bases for the Afghan National Security Forces.

Sitting in the centre of the Helmand Valley the town of Sangin had come to symbolise the challenges facing the British Army in the Province. The small garrison of troops stationed in the mud brick town were too strong to be defeated by the Taliban, but not strong enough to launch a major operation to drive the enemy out.

Two weeks ago that all changed when Royal Marine Commandos, supported by Afghan, US, Canadian, Dutch and Estonian forces, finally launched a massive operation to clear the valley of Taliban influence. Taliban forces caught at the centre of a pincer operation were either destroyed or forced to flee into the surrounding countryside.

Angel of Kandahar

So, assisted by fellow RAF Waddington Senior Aircraftsman Chris Dyke, he saw an opportunity in his 'spare time' in Afghanistan to put his skills to more artistic endeavours and create the 'Angel of Kandahar':

"Nearly everyone knows what the 'Angel of the North' looks like and have probably passed it going up or down the A1, so it seemed an ideal and recognisable subject," Corporal Leighton said.

"We spent our off duty time in the evening cleaning and welding the parts together; it finally took shape and a base was also manufactured from scrap to prevent the work from blowing over in inclement weather of which we've had a bit recently."

Rifleman Donnachie confirmed KIA

It is with great sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of Rifleman Paul Donnachie of 2nd Battalion the Rifles in Iraq on Sunday 29 April 2007.[snip]

It was while Rifleman Donnachie was dismounted and checking part of the patrol's route that he was shot by an opportunist gunman. Rifleman Donnachie was immediately evacuated to Basra Palace, but sadly he subsequently died from his injuries.

Honor their fallen

I think we like our allies, who have been with us for over 100 years in war and peace, because we have a distinct affinity for their hats.

Australian Army rebuilding Tarin Kot hospital

The feature of the RTFs reconstruction effort is the work being conducted at the Tarin Kowt Hospital. By refurbishing this building, essential health services will again be available to the people of Uruzgan.

Australia has deployed an ADF Reconstruction Task Force (RTF), consisting of a combined arms team, to the Uruzgan Province in Southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. The RTF is in partnership with the Netherlands Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and forms part of the NATO- led International Security Assistance Force.

Summary only...

Iran British Crisis: Another Take

Publius Pundit says that the "Softer, Gentler Iran" is a made for media attempt to show that Iranians can be trusted with nuclear technology and will play by the "rules".

Belmont Club says that there was and is an ongoing prisoner swap.

British troops left on a plane for England.

Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the British men told Ahmadinejad in English. Another male service member said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."

Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."

Three members of the crew were later interviewed on Iranian state-run television, apologizing for the alleged incursion into Iran's waters and again thanking Ahmadinejad for their release.

"I can understand why you're insulted by the intrusion into the waters," said Lt. Felix Carman, shown seated on a couch.

"Thank you for letting us go and we apologize for our actions, but many thanks for having it in your hearts to let us go free," Turney said.

ROE, SOP and Rules for Captured Prisoners of foreign hostile nations.

London Times: From War to Costume Party

BBC: Apologies for the intrusion.

BBC: Pragmatists in Iran Prevail?

The Independent: All the World's a Stage

I would be surprised if these sailors and marines are repatriated to their ship. I think there is going to be a serious problem with their behavior while in captivity. While the country is publically extatic to have them returned, privately, they've caused quite a bit of consternation. Were they coerced? Or did they treat it as one big "lark"?

Either way, the questions will remain with them. They will be debriefed and assigned a desk job "stateside" anyway. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but, aside from the method of their capture due to lax oversight that may change SOP, and how to behave in captivity.

More information on Economic Warfare.

Finally, a thought regarding the immediate "why" Iran may have interdicted the British right at that moment. From October 2006:

From October 30 to 31, 2006, U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf will join the armed forces of several other countries to hold a naval exercise in the interception and search of ships carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles. Though long planned, the exercise has added importance because of this month’s nuclear test in North Korea and President George W. Bush’s subsequent warning that Pyongyang will be “held to account” if it sells nuclear material to Iran or al-Qaeda.

Proliferation Security Initiative

The exercise, involving the simulated interdiction and searching of a cargo ship, is part of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a program proposed by President Bush at a G-8 summit in Poland in May 2003. Intended to keep WMD out of the hands of U.S.-designated rogue states and terrorists, PSI calls for sharing intelligence information and practicing interdiction techniques and coordination. The first and foremost PSI target has always been North Korea, but its most widely known and successful action was the 2003 interception of the Libyan-bound ship BBC China, which was ordered into an Italian port and found to be carrying Pakistani-designed uranium enrichment centrifuge parts.

Maybe, just maybe, there was something in the water that the IRGC didn't want the British to interdict and find. Certainly, the bruhaha over the missing Brits caused the ships in the area to change operations. Like, say, not searching some ships it would have? Or not seeing a ship that slipped by the net?

Iran press has recently released statements stating that the Iranians will triple their enriched uranium output. Something that had many observers scratching their heads wondering how they would do that with the Russians gone.

Maybe it is easier than we think.

Summary only...

British Rules of Engagement Will Probably Not Change, But SOP Will

There is quite a bit of chattering about whether there will be a change to the British Rules of Engagement over the recent seizure of British Sailors and Marines by the Iranians. I don't think so.

What I think will happen is a big change in operating procedure, which is different than Rules of Engagement.

In the beginning of the crisis, it was reported that the two RHIBs had a helicopter on oversight. But, when it appeared that the search was going to be "routine", the helicopter returned or went on to another oversight. What I think will happen is that this idea of "routine" and, what can only be called "lax" security (because that is one of the larger aspects of this scandal), will be gone. I imagine that all missions, particularly close to this "disputed area" will have oversight by a much larger gun boat in immediate view or a helicopter.

This is going to be difficult for the available craft as well as in trying to keep the operations "de-escalated". Necessary close flight coverage may mean that the Iranians consider these activities more threatening. Still, I can't imagine that even now the operating procedures (SOP? in Britian?) are more stringent in maintaining the security of operating for their service members.

Second, I imagine, like the US military, that SOMEBODY is going to have at least a mild reprimand on their sheet for not providing appropriate cover. Obviously, SOP had already included some aspect of oversight and somebody left or caused it to be taken from the group. After the abductions from 2004 of the British marines operating on the al Shaatt Arab, something had to have been said. But, maybe it was only for the Marines and didn't make it around the rest of the forces?

Third, the appearance of these sailors on Iranian TV countering the official British line that the forces were taken in Iraqi water, posed significant issues in negotiating position for the British. It was one thing when it was one or two, but it was quite another when it was all of the captured forces making similar statements, indicating they were in Iranian territory and apologizing for the mistake.

Now, it does not take a genius to know that these men and one woman were probably told that, if they just admitted the problem and let people know that they had done it, no matter how accidental and apologized, the whole thing would be over shorthly and they could go home. This is why the Iranians were keeping them from seeing the British Consulate. If the sailors had known otherwise, they might not have been as keen to participate so directly with the propaganda stunt.

These men and one woman may have been operating under the idea that, if they were at least seen on TV their families would know they were okay. Many POWs from Vietnam had decided to do the same while silently trying to pass a signal that they were coerced.

Whatever the reasons, this definitely had a serious effect on the British position (need I say, "embarassing"?) I would be surprised if a memo regarding appropriate behavior for "captured" British military will have been circulated, if not an entirely new order and SOP.

Many have suggested that the forces need special training to this effect. That may well be getting underway for new recruits or those "shore side" in England.

On the otherhand, due to the nature of al Qaida and other extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, many may have concluded that such training was moot since there are rarely any "captures" of US or Coalition forces. Mostly KIA and WIA with one MIA, Matt Maupin, who said very little but is alleged to have been shot by his captors shortly after his capture.

It is hard to tell what effect this issue and the need for "de-escalatory" procedures had on these operations and many like it.

New Rules of Engagement? I don't think so, but, if there are, I doubt they will be so different as to authorize firing on "non-involved" (ie, countries we are not declared to be at war with -recall the early Chinese and the AWAC story) forces trying to sieze our British allies' forces. If anything, they will most likely still be "non-violent", such as interdiction by the oversight flight through non-violent means (such as buzzing, maintaing follow on low flight pattern until called off, etc, etc, etc)

The whole point will be to keep an international crisis from spearheading into a national conflict.

The Guard -- the radical force that the U.S. says is supplying weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq, and that calls for exporting Iranian-style revolutions to other Muslim nations -- is ``interpreting their orders differently'' than the regular Iranian Navy, said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Historically, Guard commanders and crews have been the ``most obnoxious,'' sailing directly at U.S. ships in high- stakes games of ``chicken,'' Pollack said.[snip]

The Revolutionary Guard may not follow standard procedures covering contact with U.S. and U.K. forces -- so-called rules of engagement -- that could help defuse potential conflicts.

``The rules of engagement of the regular Iranian navy appear to be very careful because we haven't seen them engaged in an incident in quite some time. But the rules of engagement for the IRGC are clearly very aggressive,'' said U.S. Representative Mark Kirk (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Republican.[snip]

Britain's first sea lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said on March 25 that British rules of engagement are ``very much de- escalatory because we don't want wars starting,'' the British newspaper The Independent reported.

U.S. forces may have more leeway because of a 1987 incident in which an Iraqi fighter jet launched two missiles at the USS Stark as the frigate patrolled Gulf waters. Iraq, at war with Iran at the time, said it was a case of mistaken identity.

As a result, U.S. Naval commanders were given more authority to protect themselves in the Gulf. ``It was emphasized that they do not have to be shot at before responding and that they have an unambiguous responsibility to protect their units and people,'' the Pentagon wrote in its formal report on the Vincennes incident.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps SOP very dangerous.

Another interesting note reported by Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrisey via Instapundit:

Iran, the New South Africa -

Missouri took the first steps among the states to divest their portfolios of any foreign corporations doing business with Iran, a move they started last year. Now eight other states have begun to follow suit, and the latest state may make the biggest impact of all. California has just passed legislation that would transfer billions of dollars away from foreign investments:

It is the kind of political movement that fits handily on a bumper sticker: Divest Iran.
Over the past year, one state, Missouri, has opted to do just that, while several others, including New Jersey, have also begun to write or to consider legislation to divest.

But the nascent movement took on decidedly more weight last week with the preliminary success of a bill in the California Legislature. The measure would force two of the nation’s largest pension funds — devoted to the state’s public employees and its teachers, with combined holdings of nearly $400 billion — to remove their money from any foreign company doing business in Iran. American companies are already barred from such dealings.

Missouri did it first, probably as part of an over all effort that it started after 9/11 to divest itself of stock from "terror sponsoring states". I noted this in 2004 I believe (can't find the link at the moment).

But, it is definitely a way to put pressure on Iran. However, a critic claims:

William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, with offices in New York and Washington, which filed suit against the Illinois law, said divestment bills — while morally laudable — could sabotage diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran.
“The companies that would be divested would be European and Asian companies,” Mr. Reinsch said. “It sticks a stick in the eye of the very people and the very countries we are trying to get to cooperate with us.”

But, the Captain noted:

Uh, yeah. That would be those same European countries that declined to impose sanctions on Iran after the mullahcracy abducted 15 British sailors and Marines, right?

Yup.

Summary only...

Rosie O'Donnell O'Dunce O'Dumbass Implodes

Well, it had to happen. Another actor/comedian/singer that I used to think was even slightly entertaining has had to out their personal views and reminded me why I don't really watch any of these folks anymore.

It's not enough that Rosie O'Donnell portrays routine anti-smuggling interdiction (which happens every day) as some conspiratorial provocation for war (when the Iranians clearly have a much bigger reason to conspire). She had to go on and say that she believed there was some sort of government cover up OR direct involvement in the 9/11 incident.

For that she should be kicked to the curb and her limo drained of all gasoline and lubricating oil so she has to push it all the way back home.

People are poking fun at her left and right, but Popular Mechanics took it seriously and, once again, put together the definitive explanation as to why the towers collapsed (as if, watching it that day, from plane entry to burning embers).

For my own answer, I simply can't believe that this woman would get away with acting like she is a structural engineer. She's a G_d Damned comedian, for the love of all things holy.

I would like someone to give me a platform to vent my spleen on such morons.

I'll point to two other local disasters that were from similar issues: stress on beams and connections not meant to carry the weight.

Hyatt Regency Catwalk

In 1981, the famous "atrium catwalks" at the Kansas City Hyatt Regency collapsed. 114 people died and 200 were seriously injured. While the noted document discusses the technical engineering concepts that led to the collapse, the best part of the explanation (and probably the simplest that Rosie would understand):

The potential for disaster was cemented when the design was changed by Havens Steel Company. Instead of using the single-rod design originally proposed by G. C. E. International, the designers adopted a double-rod design. In this design, a set of rods would connect the fourth floor walkway to the trusses of the roof of the atrium, and a second set of rods would connect the second floor walkway to the fourth floor walkway independent of the first set of rods. These rods would be secured to the beams of the walkway by bolts at the end of each rod [8].

The single rod design and double rod design can easily be compared with an analogy. If one monkey is hanging on a branch, and another monkey is hanging below it on the same branch, then each monkey only has to support its own weight. If the second monkey is hanging onto the legs of the first monkey, then the first monkey must be able to hold both it’s weight and the weight of the first monkey or else they will both fall. Since the designers failed to understand very elementary concepts involving force and stress concentration, the plan for an engineering failure was created.

Get that, Rosie? Once the overall support structure for the towers was damaged, the entire building was damaged. The rest of the beams and support structures for each subsequent floor was forced to hold up the weight of the others. Something it was not designed to do.

Thus, with the first monkey having to hold up all the other 80 remaining monkies (floors), they all fell down.

Unfortunately, Rosie only chooses to imitate two of the three monkies, see no evil (Iranian mullahs aren't "evil" even though, if Rosie went to Iran she would either be hanged as a lesbian or forced to under go trans-gender surgery in order to get her man's lust for woman into a man's body) and hear no evil (obviously, the continued "Death to America" and "Wipe Israel off the Map" chants don't make it into Rosie's gigantic dressing room at the View to Stupidity):



Instead of "say no evil", Rosie decided to do this:



When she should have been doing this:



Kemper Arena Roof

If you're going to pretend to be an engineer, at least read the above link and get some clue about engineering before you speak. Of course, Rosie is too busy making a monkey out of herself and pretending she is still funny after all these years so she probably won't take the time.

Thus, I will excerpt a few important, edifying excerpts (I hope these words and concepts aren't too big for Rosie) - form and function:

6.1 STEEL
Steel is a very affordable and strong material. There are many different types of steel; however, all are composed of iron and carbon with small amounts of other metals in it that give it specific qualities. The production of steel in mass quantity has two different strengths. Regular structural steel has a yielding strength of 36,000 pounds per square inch and high-strength steel has a yielding strength of 50,000 pounds per square inch (Salvadori 64). However, steel can theoretically have a yielding strength of 4 million pounds per square inch. Right now, we have steel cables that have an ultimate strength of 300,000 pounds per square inch with an allowable stress of 150,000 pounds per square inch. This is strong enough to suspend the Leaning Tower of Pisa from a cable that is 1.1 inches in diameter (Salvadori 65).

However, there are some downsides to steel. It melts at relatively low temperatures, around 1200 degrees F, and becomes brittle at relatively high temperatures, around 30 degrees F. Without proper treatments, steel becomes useless and dangerous (Salvadori 65). In addition, if treated improperly, steel in a high building slices into pastry thin layers. This phenomenon is called lamination stress. Improperly welded joints cause similar stresses. Finally, repeated compression and tension fatigue steel (Salvadori 66).

Remember those underlined portions. Going on with the "weight" and "structure" aspects of the Kemper Arena incident:

13.2.1 SCENARIO
On June 4th, 1979 at 6:45pm, a downpour of rain with 70 mph hit Kansas City. Arther LaMuster, worker and only person in the arena at the time, heard odd noises 25 minutes later. He inspected the area and barely had time to get out as the center of the roof collapsed. It was determined later that approximately one acre, or 200 x 215 ft of roof collapsed. The air pressure, increased by the rapidly falling roof caused some of the walls to blow out. However, the portals remained undamaged. Ironically, thousands of architects there for the American Institute of Architects Convention had been sitting in the arena only 24 hours before (Levy 59).

Okay. Got that? As the roof came down, it compressed the air in the building. It had to go somewhere so IT WENT OUT through the walls causing an "explosion". The same phenomena as seen on the day the towers collapsed. Documented in many unfortunate, non-government organized, even non-terrorist, disasters.

Note the image below showing the planes took out significant structural support systems that are damaged by the planes:



You simply cannot change physics and chemistry. All things that Rosie knows jack about. As an actual engineer points out, steel will melt at 1,200 degrees farhenheit. A standard house (not Rosie's), fully furnished, can reach temperatures up to 4,000 degrees fahrenheit at its "peak". Maybe Rosie thinks the towers were embued with magical powers that could resist all known physics, chemistry and laws of gravity?

Now, an important picture that shows the top 30 or so floors of the building collapsing down on the remaining structure.




I would like Rosie to explain to us how the other 80 some floors were supposed to hold up under the weight of those top collapsing floors.

*crickets*

That's what I thought.

Now let's see what happens when you drop 30 floors and 2997 dead on Rosie's head:



Just what I thought.

As for the "radical Christians", here I am. I am about as radical as they come. That is to say, I don't congregate, I don't subscribe to any denomination and I have actually read the bible a few times. In a rather interesting, radical side effect, I decided that it did not tell me to kill anyone who did not believe as I do.

Thus, Rosie remains alive and able to spew all over the British, their captive sailors, the families of these sailors, the national tragedy of 9/11, the dead, their families and Christians in general.

Now, that is radical.

*psst - Barbara and the rest of the "View": If I believed in conspiracies, which hollywood is full of, I would guess that this is some effort to boost your ratings. You know, "even bad publicity is good publicity." I don't, however, believe that it was anything more than several of your folks showing complete and utter idiocy, a disregard for reality and a serious lacking in couth and compassion for all those who died and all those who were left behind.

I suggest, instead of the British apologizing, that your show should apologize instead. That, or get off the air because, like Rosie's old magazine, I have a feeling you are about to get canned."

Summary only...

Iran: Desperation

Britain seeks to raise pressure on Iran over sailors

After a day of escalating tension between London and Tehran, which pushed oil prices up sharply, the U.N. Security Council agreed a watered down statement expressing "grave concern" at the situation and supporting calls for the crew's release.

Britain, which had sought a tougher statement, plans to urge the European Union to help isolate Iran at a two-day meeting of EU ministers starting on Friday.

Acts of Desperation: Siege Mentality

Iran is now also militarily encircled by the US forces. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran - Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan.

The US Navy has been conducting a series of exercises in the Gulf - the biggest war games in the area since the invasion of Iraq four years ago.

The sense of being under siege is compounded by the US military's detention in January in Iraq of five Iranians. [snip]

And in December a former Iranian deputy defence minister disappeared in Turkey. Some Western media reported that he had defected to the West.

But the Iranian government and his family say he was abducted by the US or Israel.

All these events and pressures have created a siege mentality in Tehran.

More on Economic Warfare

Reflecting the confusion inside the Iranian state, the first coordinates for the allegedly transgressing British boats given to the British by the Iranian government turned out to be within Iraqi territorial waters too. Not until three days later did the Iranians come up with a second "corrected" set of coordinates which conveniently put the British forces on the wrong side of the line. Only someone whose political and moral compass is totally disorientated by hostility to American and British policy could dare to suggest that this act of shameless, lying, cross-border piracy is justified or excusable.[snip]

But there is something Europe should do: flex its economic muscles. The EU is by far Iran's biggest trading partner. More than 40% of its imports come from, and more than a quarter of its exports go to, the EU. Remarkably, this trade has grown strongly in the last years of looming crisis. Much of it is underpinned by export credit guarantees given by European governments, notably those of Germany, France and Italy. According to the most recent figures available from the German economics ministry, Iran is Germany's third-largest beneficiary of export credit guarantees, outdone only by Russia and China. Iran comes second to none in terms of the proportion of German exports - in recent years up to 65% - underwritten by the German government.

The total government underwriting commitment in 2005 was €5.8bn (£3.9bn), more than for Russia or China. As the squeeze grows on Iran from UN sanctions and their knock-on effects, and as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to deliver on his populist economic promises, this European trade becomes ever more vital for the Iranian regime - and ever more dependent on European government guarantees to counterbalance the growing political risk.

In the Commons yesterday a former foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, asked if Britain's European friends - and Germany, France and Italy in particular - might be prevailed upon to convey to Iran, perhaps privately in the first instance, the possibility that such export credit guarantees would be temporarily suspended until the kidnapped Europeans are freed. I gather that if such private pressure is not forthcoming, Britain might be tempted to raise the suggestion more formally at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Bremen this weekend.

So here's a challenge for the German presidency of the European Union: will you put your money where your mouth is? Or are all your Sunday speeches about European solidarity in the cause of peace and freedom not even worth the paper they are written on?

Summary only...

Economic Warfare: Iranian Economic Crisis and the British Sailors

We're not going to attack Iran unless they actually put on trial or kill any Brit. Then, all bets are off.

In the mean time, I haven't had time to post on it previously, but Iran is about to implode Soviet Style. I'm not going to suggest a date, but the writing is on the wall if you know where to look and are looking at something other than British Tars and jollies, Iran's "sovereign waters" or their Nuclear ambitions.

Long before the current sanctions, the US was already pressuring banks and other financial insitutions to limit transactions with Iran starting back in Sept. 2006. Largely because Iran was acting like any rogue regime and not being forthcoming about where the money was going. Iran was also trying to cover its tracks, keeping the Iranian name off of many transactions.

In a Washington Post article from March 25, the details of this program were laid out, including comments from the Iranian Oil Minister about how damaging its been to their oil infrastructure (already old and decrepit) as well as the Minister of Trade discussing the difficulties importers are having in getting goods in to sell (Iran having all sorts of problems that require net importing of basic goods) because they now have to pay in advance to obtain these goods instead of relying on revolving lines of credit.

The recent UN sanctions simply formalize what the US has been trying to get done on an Ad Hoc basis.

The other signs are there, too. March 22 report from lebanon indicates that Hezbollahs South Lebanese constituents are unhappy because Hezbollah has yet to begin providing promised compensation for damage or building much needed infrastructure. Of course, the two week fight with Israel didn't help Hezbollah's wallet, but they usually have money coming in from their major terror supporter, Iran. No such thing is occuring right now.

The second, and most obvious, is the Iran/Russia dispute over the lack of payment for the monthly construction fee on the Bushehr nuclear facility. The Russians are saying it's one month, the Iranians said they were not behind, but suddenly were able to scrape together a half month's payment? The Russians pulled out all their people and said they'd be back when they got "all" the money.

The third tell are the recent, continuous teacher protests for almost two months, every week. The Iranian teachers union has been protesting the lack of payment of their salaries, the low salaries (compared to the rest of the government) and the generally bad facilities.

What really killed them was the precipitous drop in oil prices (from $72 to $58) last November right after many banks stopped giving them "credit". This was because short term, high risk oil future traders divested themselves of a lot of future shares. Winter weather projections did not sustain the need for high reserves (and, since they were all American traders, may have had a whisper in their ear).

Even though oil has risen back to $62/bbl, the entire loss to Iran is about $13 billion and counting. Not much to us, but for Iran, that's 10% of their entire yearly revenue of 143 billion. When their yearly "official" budget is $168 billion (2005), not including extraneous support to Hezbollah, Iraq Shiites and other terrorists, and annual revenue is 143 billion, they are about 25 billion short on a good year (previous years may have been more or less underfunded).


Since Iran is based on an Islamic economic structure, where they can neither invest in interest baring bank products, nor except loans with interest attached, getting the difference to make up this shortage leaves little choices. In an Islamic economy, they get around this somewhat by paying or accepting "management" fees or "rent" on loans.

At least half of the reason for the original Islamic Revolution in Iran was based on economic reforms making it more "Islamic" and thus more "equal and just". During the time of the Shah, there were extreme differences between the highest and lowest classes and with the strain from the Shah's forced "westernization and industrialization", it simply exacerbated the situation as the poor congregated it even greater communities in the cities seeking low paying manufacturing or oil industry jobs.

Like most "revolutions", it is not solely (or ever) about ideology so much as it is about finance. Thus, the Iranian Mullahs are adamant about complying with the Islamic model. If they don't, the entire cornerstone of the revolution ceases to exist and so do they.

In that case, the only way for the Iranians to meet their obligations as well as maintain their Islamic financial system is to take advances on their oil revenue from the oil companies. Some experts believe that Iran has already taken up to 10 years of revenue in advance.

Oil production has plateaued and may begin falling due to the inability or lack of desire in investing in this infrastructure. Previously complicated by US laws that penalized companies for investing more than 20mil in Iranian business, fortified with US actions in September and new sanctions on March 24, the ability to maintain Iran's oil economy is becoming impossible. Iran now produces 3.5 mil/day. At the height of the Shah's reign, it produced over 6.6 mil/bbl/day Even with a slow increase the price of oil, Iran will be hard pressed to recover because 50% of its revenues are directly related to oil and natural gas and 70% comes from exports.

If you can't pump out enough, if sanctions keep investments from coming in, if you have to pay for things "in advance", if you continue to take advances on future oil revenues that you probably cannot afford to pay back and your economic system prevents you from making investments or making loans that could cover your expenditures, you are in bad financial shape.

Other issues that compound the situation and lend credence to Irans current financial crisis are the 11% "official" unemployment rate ("official" because most economists believe it is understated and closer to 16%) and the 16% quarterly inflation (again "official" because some experts place inflation at 20-21%). This inflation offsets most gains from the increase in oil prices. For any other country, that's a depression.

Add to that 44% of the population is employed in the "service sector", including government, military, education, health, hotels, airport, police, etc, that are all run and operated by the government or its agents (the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps operate the air port and various other service sectors under contract). The IRGC also manages most of the construction business in Iran, limiting foreign investment and distribution of income among the populace. Another 30% of the population is also employed in the oil and natural gas sectors, largely owned and operated by the Iranian government. Banking is also controlled by the Iranian government.

That leaves approximately 10% of the population that owns and operates private businesses. Most of these are small "mom and pop" businesses such as bakeries, tailors, bookshops, etc. Very little manufacturing or other industries can flourish in Iran. In fact, Iran is a net importer of just about every kind of everyday goods from agricultural items, food stuffs, basic machines (TVs, washers, driers, even cooking utensils, cooking oil and pans), hygiene, textiles and so on.

It's a recipe for disaster and it is quickly looming for the Iranian government and economy.

In the March 25 WP article, a US treasury official was quoted saying that they had no idea the Iranian economic condition was so bad. Clearly, they weren't looking very hard.

Many editorials and blogs have been attacking the UN sanctions as "toothless", but that is far from reality when you take into account the Iranian economy. Excluding them from regular banking practices and available credit places them in a very bad situation.

In fact, while everyone is distracted with the question of whether the British Sailors and Marines were taken due to the sanctions and its effects on the Iranians nuclear ambitions, the real issue is the effect on their economy.

Very likely the Iranians are looking to extract some concessions from England to let some of the pressure off of their financial situation. Especially, because the British bank HSBC is one of Irans major banking partners and "lenders". It's the same tactics the Iranians tried in June 2004 when they took 8 Brits hostage and released them after 3 days of negotiations directly after the Brits have drafted the first "rebuke" to Iran from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

The Iranians are playing a very high-stakes game. Aside from this act of war (considering it is the second time they have done it), or at least a revision of the Barbary Pirates holding British sailors for ransom, they have bit off more than they can chew politically and economically.

The Iranians are trying everything to reverse their economic spiral. Ahmadinejad recently visited Hugo Chavez in hopes of making a trade agreement with Venezuela as well as looking for an ally in OPEC. Venezuela currently chairs OPEC. The Iranians were hoping to get an emergency meeting with OPEC to reduce oil production among OPEC nations in order to further inflate the price of oil and help Iran out of its financial crisis.

This is the other reason that Iran has been trying to get a toe hold in Iraq. It desperately needs economic partners and OPEC partners to offset the Saudi/Gulf Arab influence. Finally, the Iraq alliance would cement an "arch of influence" from Hezbollah in South Lebanon, Syria, Iraq to Iran, isolating US allies in the south.

Unfortunately, the Saudis and Other Gulf Arab nations aren't interested in saving Iran since they see them as THE major destabilizer in the region now that Saddam is gone.

That means that Iran is in a hole with very few (if any) friends.

In fact, the Saudis and Egyptians are helping it along by even their mild or unbelievable threats of meeting Shia aggresion with their military or financially supporting Iraqi Sunnis. The Iranians responded by first financing more Shiite weapons and militias in Iraq to try to solidify control.

The final indicator of the Iranian economic crisis is reflected in the disappearance of al Sadr from Iraq, the Mahdi army from the streets and the uptick in inter-sectarian violence in Basra in South Iraq where SCIRI and DAWA are once again fighting for control of the region now that their benefactor's (Iran's) money is starting to slow down.

Just another sign of Iran's current cash crunch.

War is most likely not necessary. Even if Iran wins some concessions from England, even if oil prices continue to rise due to the current crisis, none of it will save their economy and none of it will save the Mullahs.

On the other hand, it is hard to know what the Mad Mullahs will do when backed in the corner and going down for the count. Still, they'd have to be really "mad" to risk open warfare.

One must wonder why the US congress is willing to leave Iraq, allow Iranian dominated Shia political parties to gain unchecked control, provide Iran with an economic and political ally when Iran is just this side of a Soviet Style Implosion?

Wall Street Journal: French Total and the Bribed Iranians

Other related posts:
Economic Warfare: Axis of Evil
Russia-Iran Matrix
Iranian Kursk (money and parts for military equipment maintenance lacking)China-Iran Matrix
Economic Warfare: Send them Levis
Iranian Dissidents use Nuclear Crisis to press for freedoms
Freedom is the Fire

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Our Allies: British Marines Held for Third Day

Iran continues to ratchet up its acts of war in attempts to negotiate their way of out the UN Sanctions or possibly the capture of many al Qods operatives in Iraq (then there was the "defection" of a high ranking al Qods commander recently in Turkey).

All of these things point to high stakes games (though, it should not be unfamiliar to those of us who remember the Air Force crew who were held by the Chinese a few years ago).

Most see it as a "negotiating" tactic. However, these acts seem very aggressive considering the current situation.

Pajamas Media has a run down of the coverage. One blog reminded readers that the Russians had left the al Bushehr Nuclear Facility recently. Allegedly over lack of payment by the Iranians, but this poster suggested that Russia may feel the situation is far too tense to have their personnel inside Iran.

In fact, another report indicates that the Iranians had planned the kidnappings almost a week in advance.

All this while the Democrats have promised not to authorize action against Iran with Kucinich threatening "impeachment" procedures if the President acts without the consent of congress.

I don't think it is inappropriate to suggest, at this time, that these comments have, in fact, emboldened Iran to acts of war instead of de-escalating the situation.

Summary only...

Our Allies in Afghanistan: British Royal Marine Commando

Found this at Milblogging.com:

Royal Blue J company on a Mission

Day 10

Rip, roar and havoc. Not a fight. A battle. Fire from the front. Fire from the flanks. Rockets and bullets scything through the air. Up to 30 Taleban in 12 different positions have opened up from close range before we are out of the vehicles. The rear door swings open and we pitch out from the warm womb of the Viking into sudden light, chattering machineguns, explosions and whipping lead: nought-to-ninety in a second on an adrenalin high. Hit the ground. Run. See an empty trench.

Dive into it. To our left one of the open-deck Land Rovers, a mobile machinegun platform is firing withering bursts at Talebs shooting from dunes beyond. Tug is to assault the position with his six Marines. They peel out of cover and take a long run leftwards.

Summary only...