Among the few countries that have a substantial influence over the prices of crude oil and natural gas, Iran is probably the most feared by the international community due to its strategic, geographic and geopolitical position in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Regularly coming into economic conflict with the United States over the last few years, Iran has successively rebuffed calls for it to expand the production level of the OPEC, threatened to take control of the Strait of Hormuz – where half of the world’s oil production is transported weekly, allegedly supported terrorist groups in Lebanon and Palestine and, in 2007, threatened to bomb half of the off-shore oil and natural gas platforms in the Caspian Sea if the Americans didn’t remove their troops from Azerbaijan.

There are a wide range of factors that influence oil prices, from piracy in the Indian Ocean to a rise in Chinese demand. But Iran now holds a special spot on the list since geopolitics have moved it center-stage.

It’s important to remember that Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producer and also possesses the world’s second largest natural gas reserve. By such standards, Iran could hold half of the world hostage in terms of energy. So why hasn’t it happened yet?

Iran needs the Western world to buy its oil and its natural gas because, just like every country across the globe that relies on natural resources for the survival of its economy, the Islamic Republic needs to eat, needs to finance its infrastructures, needs to pay for its nuclear program and its military equipment.
The problem is that Iran has allied itself with one of the most feared countries in the world in terms of energy and military power, the one and only motherland: Russia. The same Russia that has been providing Iran with unique missile guiding systems, with the latest Sukhoï and MIG combat planes, with access to some information on civil nuclear engineering, and the same country that was given an offer to join the OPEC two months ago by the same man who represents the Islamic Republic: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Furthering this process, Iran recently offered Russia, Venezuela and a few Caspian Sea countries a place in the formation of a new cartel to control natural gas markets, using the same model as the OPEC. The day following this announcement, oil prices soared by $10 and natural gas prices followed by about the same amount.

From a technical point of view, Iran cannot by itself determine the new crude oil prices, it requires the agreement of a majority of the OPEC council. From a practical point of view, it can influence it greatly, and at a very impressive speed.
Over the course of 2008, crude oil price went up six times, leading to a ceiling price of $147 per barrel before going down again. Every single time, the rise in prices was the direct result of an action taken by Iran: testing new mid-range missiles, announcing the possibility of a cut in OPEC production, announcing civil nuclear tests, etc.

Overall, Iran has a considerable influence over crude oil and natural gas prices, but it’s never been very technical. One must understand the nature of Iranian provocation, and not respond to it by creating a “risk premium” or “fear premium” of $15. The western world still needs to learn how to do that, and it could take a few lessons from Russia on the matter.

Sincerely,
Thibault Normand

Find out more on http://www.eastern-intelligence.com

Normand is the owner of Eastern Intelligence
He works as a free lance writer in business intelligence and consults on stratehic matters such as oil and gas business, in Eastern europe, Russia and Central Asia. Read more about him here : Who am I?

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/of-iran-and-oil-1317350.html

The contention of the Middle East’s most prized land has been a stalemate for peace since before Christ, not the artificial 1948 or 1967 which is most commonly used in current modern political debate, and one of the staples of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Since his inauguration as President he has continually sided with the Islamic world and it has frightened many Jewish and Christians alike. Please note that I distinguish between secular Jewish and Christians, by name only, from those who actively practice the faith. His first interview as President was with Al-Arabiya network and his first major diplomatic speech was made to Cairo, Egypt. In his speech to Cairo he legitimized the control of the Temple Mount by the Muslims with the following quote: ”…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer (1). ” The story of Isra is key to this argument.

Last week to the United Nations he called for talks without preconditions while setting forth preconditions, not logical , but typical Obama fashion. ”The time has come — the time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues, security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.(2)” It is obvious in this situation that the demand for a contiguous state prior to 1967 borders are preconditions, but why would a ‘Christian’ be so adamant to create Palestine to pre -1967 borders?

A day after his announcement he was the first President of the United States to Chair the United Nations Security Council and two days later in unison with the world powers he laid forth a condemnation of Iran for their secret nuclear programme. The Israelis and Iranians have been in a constant war since the inception of the modern state of Israel in 1948. Iran funds Hezbollah from the North in Lebanon and Hamas from the West in Gaza and has openly stated the desire to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. They are currently creating a secret nuclear programme for ‘peaceful’ purposes only and pose an existential threat to Israel. So…, Barack Obama is condemning them, how could he be a siding with the Muslims? This is the point where Barack Obama is playing chess and the current arguments have been unable to address.

By condemning Iran and acting from a perspective that he is hard on the Islamic Republic he will force Israel to make concessions in the peace efforts with the Palestinians. He will then use the peace that he creates with his Islamic brothers to create a contiguous Palestine pre-1967 borders through the new US policy in the United Nations. This will essentially wipe Israel off the face of the earth, without the nuclear holocaust proposed by Iran and in unison with the International community. Checkmate.

Sincerely,
Anthony DeFazio

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anthony_DeFazio http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Creation-of-Palestine—Barack-Obamas-Checkmate&id=2993629

Many Arabs in the Middle East are dissatisfied with their autocratic leaders who had promised heaven but delivered filth and tyranny. And possibly this demonstrates that democratic governance in the eyes of lay people in the Middle East is a possibility that has nothing to do with their Arab and Islamic culture. Like their counterparts elsewhere, Arabs have strived for liberating themselves from political totalitarianism, for the most part unsuccessfully because their powerful dictators were supported by the West. Yet, the lay people in Iraq viewed the US troops as liberators from the oppressive ruling of Saddam and his autocracy.

Indeed, Islam complicates democracy. Even after its defective elections, Iran, a long-standing theocracy, demonstrates an extraordinary democratic vigor. Some of the toughest Arab elections have been held by Palestinians under Israeli ruling and by Iraqis after the US invasion. So, in a way, Islam has allowed democracy to its territories. On the other hand, Arab leaders hold on to their power through a distrustful combination of bullying and intimidation. Occasionally, they allow hollow parties organize counterfeit elections, which then return them to power. When they are given the chance to participate in genuine elections, they know what is at stake and what is going to be possibly split between Islamist movements and secular movements that are scared of Islam. Most of the cosmetic reforms that were made under the ‘freedom agenda’ of Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks have been rolled back. So, in a way, Islam chooses when to prevent and when to allow democracy.

One of the most common obstacles in democratic transformation in the Middle East is religious freedom. Islam emphasizes that people are free to choose to believe or not. Muslim history documented many debates in mosques about the existence of God, particularly in the first three centuries. Besides, Qur’an emphasizes on justice and consultation (shura). According to many political analysts, in the absence of clear institutions to identify how consultation should take place in the Muslim culture, many Arabs failed to interpret the message. Hence, the interpretation of some elements of Islam as liberal is rather unfortunate.

Another element that should be taken into consideration is the fact that in many Arab countries regimes are quite permanent. Hosni Mubarak is the President of Egypt over the last 28 years; Muammar al-Gaddafi is the de facto leader of Libya since 1969; Hafez Assad was the President of Syria for 30 years. After his death, his son Bashar rose to power. After the failure of Bush administration to promote democracy, president Obama promotes respect in his talks with the Arab world. No matter what that means to the Muslims, democracy is a long shot for the Arab nations because Arab leaders won’t be able to control the masses like they do now.

For the Arab world, democracy implies education, institutions, free press and tolerance. Like in the Western countries, in the Arab nations, women are becoming educated, fertility declines, businessmen participate in the economy and the media have shifted from the state-run media to the revolution of the satellite television that forces leaders to explain and justify and explain themselves in public. All this transformation is not enough to cause a big change and it’s definitely not welcome from the rulers. However, it creates an agitation that alters the setting of corruption and totalitarianism of the old Arab governments.

In reality, it appears that the Arabs want to maintain the status quo because a free media that will awake the Arab people to the brutality of the regional governments won’t be to the best national interests of the Arab nations.

Sincerely,
Christina Pomoni

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Christina_Pomoni http://EzineArticles.com/?Democracy-in-the-Middle-East—Why-This-is-a-Frightening-Prospect-For-Its-Rulers&id=2988828