Iran Deleted From the World's Banking Computers 667
dtjohnson writes "Iran is being deleted from the world banking system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) computers as of Saturday at 1600 UTC. Once the SWIFT codes for Iranian banks are deleted, Iranian banks will no longer be able to transfer funds to and from other worldwide banks, turning Iranian international commerce into a barter operation. SWIFT is taking the action at the request of EU
members to comply with international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons. The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."
New SWIFT (Score:4, Interesting)
Cutting iran off SWIFT may lead to development of new messaging system between Iran, Russia, China etc. This would make banks of those countries less dependent on western entities.
US wants SWIFT war on Iran (because of oil bourse) (Score:5, Interesting)
"...wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar..."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB17Ak04.html [atimes.com]
(No, I haven't read the full article, it was linked on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse#Opening [wikipedia.org] )
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:1, Interesting)
North Korea is a different story. There is a whole different dynamic at work in that country. I'll deliver my thoughts on that when a NK story pops up.
Re:Sad world... (Score:4, Interesting)
so, they could easilly nuke Tel Aviv and not disturb Jerusalem. Israel has more than one population center, and Tel Aviv IS the major financial center.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I meant there is a whole different dynamic on how they pursue negotiations, and how they must be dealt with. Their recent breakneck pursuit of nuclear weapons did indeed begin after the "Axis of Evil" speech. They were even a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was only in 2003 that they withdrew and ratcheted up their nuke and missile program. Read up on it [wikipedia.org] for yourself.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact is though Iran's leaders both the Ayatollah and the president frequent label the Israelis as the infidel. I don't know about the Ayatollah but the president has said the same thing about the US AND threatened to wipe out Israel.
So in terms of fiery rhetoric; I don't think calling us the Infidel vs us calling them the Axis of Evil is really different. As to making threats, we have never suggested we mean to wipe anyone off the earth, and we have followed thru on the threats we have made.
Lives are at stake and it really is potentially us vs them. I don't see why we should not expect leaders to be mature enough not to be making idle threats, I don't think I want to expose my family to the risk they prove to be something other than idle threats, when they come from someone with the ability to carry them out, that is the test.
If Iran becomes a Nuclear power we could lose a city to a suitcase type dirty bomb. They have labeled us the Infidel and treated to destroy that same infidel; once they have the capability to do that then WE MUST ASSUME THEY MEAN TO DO IT and either remove their capability to do it or destroy them. A better option is to deny them the capability in the first place.
From their perspective they can no doubt say the same thing, and from a purely ethical stand point they have right try. The fact is we are where we are, threats have been made. If they continue to arm there are no choices. Its not a question of who is right and who is wrong, at this stage is a practical matter of me and mine come before them and theirs; and we are the mightier.
Barter HELPS avoid sanctions (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you track when someone swaps 100 tons of wheat or 100 bars of gold for some barrels of oil? You can't. If you "let" them use the international monetary system, you have a means of tracking all their activites. Follow the money and you find the bad guys. Giving them a pass on that lets them trade with whomever they want without any trace.
West cutting its nose to spite its face (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?
Iran views Israel as a projection of USA dominance. So to be honest, I think the most wise policy is to heed the suggestions of George Washington and drop our entangling alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations. If Israel wants to nuke Iran, let them. Just don't expect us to be behind them.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:4, Interesting)
This picture called, it says it disagrees with you
http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/ [conspiracyuk.co.uk]
Just a schema- will have no real effect. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have implemented SWIFT for investment banking ETL- let me preface this by saying most back-office investment banking ETL operations are not standardized and generally a mess. SWIFT is a relatively new standard schema. You will still absolutely be able to get pricing on an Iranian bond from Bloomberg. Money is far more important than poitics in the financial world.
A CUSIP or ISIN is the unique identifier for securities. When you want to know how much your security is trading for or what the options spread looks like, you use that identifier- and a company like Bloomberg or Reuters will send you back the data for a fee. That request/response may be in a SWIFT format- but I can tell as of right now, you certainly don't have to use that. every market data providers format is different, SWIFT is just a relatively recent attempt at a standard.
So really- this will have no effect. Even if Bloomberg where to stop pricing Iranian securities, they're still worth something on an exchange- and some market data provider is going to tell you how much that security is worth. And you'll still be free to trade it.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?
Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.
wiki article about Iraq sanctions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq [wikipedia.org]
paper on A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justication: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Hauser_MindLang.pdf [cdnresearch.net]
.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:2, Interesting)
... and that makes it right?
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:5, Interesting)
The dynamic at work is that every time the US has managed to make progress in negotiations with North Korea, the US has then prompty reneged on its side of the deal. Usually it's been the case that after the agreement was signed between the two countries, there has subsequently been a change in the US administration, and the new administration decides that they want to cancel all the treaties signed by the previous administration.
Generally, the agreements have been of the nature "The US agrees to build and supply modern large-scale nuclear power plants in North Korea, and North Korea agrees not to produce nuclear weapons." What North Korea really wants is huge amounts of electricity and agricultural aid (which is why it always signs such agreements, and is usually interested in negotiations).
Then, North Korea, seeing the actions of the US (such as building most of a nuclear power plant, then abandoning construction before completion because the new administration wants to be seen as "hard-line") as bad faith and breach of contract (and rightly so), resumes the activities that it had agreed to cease, because that seems to be the only way to get the US back to the negotiating table.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Incidentally, the issue regarding Iran is not that they are building nuclear weapons, or even trying to. The issue is that they are aiming to achieve complete mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, and thus nuclear energy self-sufficiency. This would achieve several things: first, all of the oil currently going to domestic energy needs in Iran could then be exported. Secondly, Iran could massively improve and expand infrastructure and industry, given a vast and self-sufficient supply of nuclear energy. Third, they would be able to export low-enriched nuclear fuel assemblies to other countries who want to have nuclear energy.
It's that third point that is really irking countries such as the US; currently, there is an exclusive cartel which enriches nuclear fuel and sells nuclear fuel assemblies. Thus, prices are fixed, and very high. An independent vendor outside the cartel would upset that monopoly and its price structure, not to mention that it might consider selling nuclear fuel assemblies (or even complete reactors) to poor countries populated by brown people, thus enabling those countries to improve their infrastructure and standard of living in turn. Something the US (and France, and the energy corporations therein, etc.) very much do not want.
It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:1, Interesting)
The answer to "why" is generally "money." Somewhere, someone is making money off of American soldiers being in Afghanistan.
Re:Who is threatning who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why it's so silly to think of Iran as a rational actor as some have unfortunately claimed. No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.
Yes, there's the theory that by having them you prevent anyone from ever wanting to invade you. But that's only a reason to already have them, not to get everyone's ire by trying to get them. If you want to join the nuclear club, you do it in absolute secrecy, then make a big announcement after you're already armed. But once the secret's already out about your development efforts, it's time to apologize, state your clear intentions not to keep going all the way, and quickly dismantle whatever you've done.
Okay, so they're worried about us maybe invading them someday, but why would we do that? Because we seem eager to get into wars in the region? Well, not really, not really. We went into Afghanistan because we got attacked. We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs. The lesson here is not that we are jumping at the chance to invade countries all over the middle east, but that we will only do so if you attack us or threaten mushroom clouds. Granted the Iraqi WMD thing turned out to not be quite as big a deal as we may have once thought, but clearly the solution to not being next is not brazenly building nukes right next door.
Let's face it, Iran is already plenty powerful and influential in the region. We saw to that by bumping off their biggest rival, Iraq. They don't need a bomb, now, nor should they want a bomb. They seem to be trying to get one anyway. If they're this reckless about acquiring nuclear weapons, how reckless will they be once they have them? Scary stuff.
Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill" (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Iranians already knew the US put the Shah in power and any "apology" only reasserted facts that had been commonplace since the 70s, and which the British had already acknowledged in any event. What most Iranians are waiting for is the apology from the US for putting the Ayatollah in power -- my Persian girlfriend (left in 2005) tells me that pretty much everyone in the democratic and monarchist movements in Iran assume that the US was behind exiling the Shah to Egypt and putting Ayatollah Khomeini in power, and it really doesn't matter how many times I try to explain to her that the US had nothing to gain from it. All Iranian reformers know is that their country has been completely fucked up by the ayatollahs, America benefits from Iran being fucked up (for oil, ???, profit), thus America put the ayatollahs in power, QED.
2) The Wikileaks cables made it clear that the MEK is a cult that once proposed mass suicides [niacouncil.org] and uses brainwashing to adhere members. It's lobbying campaign in the US Congress and ability to win support in that august body is despicable.
3) The leader of the 2009 uprising, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was a strident supporter of Iran's nuclear program and the constitution of the Iranian republic in general -- we could discount his claims as rhetoric, but then we have to throw out just about everything Ahmadi says on the same grounds. The fact is there are no good options for "regime change" in Iran for the US, or Israel for that matter -- the current leaders are bad, their rivals in the reform movement agree with them on everything that bothers the US and Israel, the Iranian people are naturally and endogenously hostile to US and Israeli regional goals (because those goals are imperialist), and the only way you could take Iran off the threat board is by putting a deeply unpopular government in power and making Iran a client state. And the Iranian people know this and support the regime accordingly, because it's a hell of a lot better than any solution the west proposes.
The idea that democracies are less belligerent is a fallacy. A democratic Iran would be spinning just as many centrifuges as an Islamic Republic. More even.
With regard to the list of all the horrible things Iran has done to the US, yeah it's rough but this is the sort of thing countries do to each other. Some plot against the Saudi ambassador isn't a causus belli any more than the US and Mossad's covert murders of Iranian scientists. And refraining from bombing them isn't "appeasement."
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:2, Interesting)
The ordinary people will suffer. This is both an act of war and a war-crime. Collective economic punishment as brutal as burning crops and poisoning reservoirs.
The real reason? Protecting the Imperial dollar as supreme instrument of International economic hegemony.
The nukes are a pantomime
Last week, the Tehran Times noted that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20. This long-planned move is part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vision of economic war with the west.
"The dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency' status of the dollar," the newspaper, which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution, said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9077600/Iran-presses-ahead-with-dollar-attack.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Beware the "Ahmadinejad" bullshit in the above post. The position of President in Iranian politics has even less power to establish or enforce policy than does that of a US President.
Re:Who is threatning who? (Score:4, Interesting)
Err... there is no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite all the inspections. As signers of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to the assistance of all other signatories in developing the full nuclear cycle, including enrichment and reactors. The US is not meeting its obligations under the treaty, to say the least. There is quite literally nothing Iran could do that would satisfy the US government, let alone Israel, so they might as well carry on.
The rest of your post is also wrong. If we invaded Afghanistan because "they attacked us", then how come Pakistan ans Saudi Arabia weren't given the same treatment, though they has as much or more to do with the attacks as the government of Afghanistan? How come we refused to give any evidence of OBL's crimes to the Afghans when they offered to put him on trial, prior to the invasion? How come the forces for the invasion were already in place on 9/11? Sure looks like a convenient excuse for what was already in the works. And is it really a coincidence that opium production went from near-zero to 90% of the world market immediately after the invasion, with our buds the Northern Alliance producing the lion's share?
As for Iraq, we know that the intelligence was deliberately falsified by those at the very top, who literally would not listen to anything that didn't confirm their preconceptions. They may have believed that there were WMDs, but they had no factual reason to believe that. More likely they were deliberately lying to the public for their own greedy, corrupt reasons.
Re:The people will be the ones who suffer (Score:4, Interesting)
"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."
Why do you feel the need to outright lie?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf [iaea.org]
Page 7, section G. Specifically:
43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by
military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);
- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).
It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.
I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.
Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?
Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?
Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?