Iran is out of gas

[Plane]

The country's aging and inefficient refineries can't meet its swelling demand for gasoline..................................The policy change prompted violence against gas stations, further limiting supply.

http://www.slate.com/id/2177387/nav/ais/

[Xavier_Onassis]

Gasoline sells for a pittance in Iran, and the goverment is afraid of raising the prices, lest it cause unrest. So they don't build the refineries, and the supply is limited that way.

That's what my Iranian friend says.

If Iran is not competent to supply gasoline to its people, why are we to suppose that they are ever going to be an atomic threat to anyone?

[Stray Pooch]

If Iran is not competent to supply gasoline to its people, why are we to suppose that they are ever going to be an atomic threat to anyone?

Because the real power in Iran places a higher priority on defense from the West than it does on meeting its own routine domestic energy needs.  That's why the Iranian claims of legitimate use of nuclear power are, at least, suspicious on face value.  Keep in mind that however intelligent, sophisticated and modernized the population of Iran is, the power still resides in the hands of hardline conservative clerics.  Iran is NOT hurting for money.  It can afford to spend a lot of money on nuclear power - whether for peaceful or other purposes.  Applying that need to defense against the west - not to mention increasing the influence and reach of the Islamic Revolution - is a far greater priority than keeping the population happy. 

Isn't it ironic?  One thread about a gas shortage in Iran and one about too much gas in the Third Reich.  Just goes to show this forum is a real ga . . . no, I can't do it. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iran's worst enemy is the US and they have them surrounded on two of four sides.
Iran cooperated with the US in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance would not have existed had not Iran supplied them with weapons and money. The defeat of the Taliban would have been very difficult without the Northern Aliance.

And yet, Juniorbush refuses to talk with Iran. What harm could possibly come from talking?

To expect Iran to remain totally neutral about Iraq would be like the US to be totally neutral about who rules in Canada.

Iran will be Iraq's neighbor and Afghanistan's neighbor forever. Iran is not going to move.

If the US cannot remove and replace a very unpopular regime in Iraq, with 22 million people, how could it do the same in Iran, which has a moderately popular regime and over three times the population?

[The_Professor]

And so says Barak Obama.

[Stray Pooch]

If the US cannot remove and replace a very unpopular regime in Iraq, with 22 million people, how could it do the same in Iran, which has a moderately popular regime and over three times the population?

The popularity of the current regime is at least partially manufactured.  Many a dictator has kept a 100 percent approval rating.  That don't mean they was pop'ler, son.  The fact is, though Rafsanjani managed to take the normal downward swing in popularity that reformers always see when the reforms don't turn out to be magic, Ahmadinejab was one of the hand-picked conservative candidates the Supreme Counsel didn't veto.  He might have been the most popular choice that was left, but that doesn't mean he has a united, loyal population behind him.  I think an invasion by the US in the present climate might give him that (Hey, Bush had a 92% approval rating right after 9-11) but that remains to be seen.

As to the population itself, I really think size is not particularly critical in that region. Iran is larger than Iraq and stronger than pretty much any place in the Middle East except Israel.  But population size isn't that big a deal until you are dealing with, say, China or India. I also wonder if the Iranian population has the kind of fanatical resolve to sustain massive casualties like the Palestinians and Iraqis.  I think the Iranian people are a wild card.  A united populace might be harder to manage, but it may actually be easier.  The biggest problem we have in Iraq is the seething hatred between the factions.  There is not so much potential in Iran.  Still, if the population really did unite behind the Clerics - and that is certainly not impossible - then they could be pretty formidable. 

I'm not really sure quite why, but I hold out a lot of hope for the people of Iran.  I just feel like with their history, heritage and relative (to the region) stability, they could do pretty well if they could dump the fanatics at the top.

I wonder if it will be Brass or MT that jumps on that last line first? 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iran COULD refine more gasoline, but it would cost the government a lot of money. Every gallon that is refined and sold to an Iranian for his private car for 40? per gallon is a a gallon of crude oil that will not be sold for triple or quadruple that amount.

Iranians respect American culture, but they are against being recolonized by the US oligarchy as a rerun of the Shah's regime. Israel is regarded almost universally in Iran as a colony that has stolen Palestinians' lands and has caused them to become menial laborers for the Israelis.

For the US to attack Iran would be far worse for the US as well as Israel. After all, Iran has no ambitions to annex Israel, or Lebanon either, for that matter.  They do see themselves as defenders of Iraqi Shiites, though. This is why they oppose the US invasion of Iraq, and why they feel a nuclear option would be a useful deterrent to US attack.

Iran will ALWAYS be a neighbor of Iraq. The US will always be thousands of miles away, and will always have a culture alien to the US.

Ahmedinejad is not popular with all Iranians, but he has far less power than the pro-Israeli US press alleges. If the US were to attack Iran, then his popularity would skyrocket upward.