Scrutable

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori are finally on their way back to the UK after being held hostage by Iran over the almost £400 million in debt we've owed them for tanks they paid for in 1979 that we never provided.

The government has long claimed it can't pay the money because of sanctions on Iran but claims to have somehow found a way to pay the money without getting into legal problems.

My question is, what's changed? Why has the government finally decided to pay up? It clearly didn't care about Nazanin or Anoosheh. Johnson hasn't suddenly got a conscious about his role in Nazanin's imprisonment. So why pay the money?

Anyone have any ideas?

Reuters version of the story hints that it's part of trying to get the US-Iran nuclear deal reinstated.
https://www.reuters.com/world/two-detai ... 022-03-16/

BBC version says the British repayment is "ring-fenced solely for humanitarian purposes" which might be a legal figleaf.

Impressed that Boris Johnson released a statement earlier today that wasn’t so incompetently written that Nazinin was immediately rearrested and locked up for life. I suppose it’s the best we can hope for.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:33 pm

Reuters version of the story hints that it's part of trying to get the US-Iran nuclear deal reinstated.
https://www.reuters.com/world/two-detai ... 022-03-16/

That's what I had assumed was going on.

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:14 pm

Impressed that Boris Johnson released a statement earlier today that wasn’t so incompetently written that Nazinin was immediately rearrested and locked up for life. I suppose it’s the best we can hope for.

That was exactly my thought too.

Global Britain needs new sources of fossil fuels.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:35 pm

Global Britain needs new sources of fossil fuels.

Getting them from Iran has the exact same issue as getting them from Saudi - they are responsible for horrors in Yemen. That's before we get to their nuclear ambitions, abysmal human rights record, sponsorship of very unpleasant proxies in other countries, etc.

FFS we should have learned our lesson about normalising relations with dictatorial regimes with imperial ambitions by now.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:46 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:35 pm

Global Britain needs new sources of fossil fuels.

Getting them from Iran has the exact same issue as getting them from Saudi - they are responsible for horrors in Yemen. That's before we get to their nuclear ambitions, abysmal human rights record, sponsorship of very unpleasant proxies in other countries, etc.

FFS we should have learned our lesson about normalising relations with dictatorial regimes with imperial ambitions by now.

Yeah, for sure, but the UK doesn't care about horrors happening to Muslims - they'll even sell you the weapons to do it (when they're not doing it themselves).

I'd love the UK (et al.) to grow a geopolitical conscience but it's not going to happen with the Johnson-Truss combo currently running the show. They will continue to make myopic decisions with horrible a..holes to maximise short-term profits and political expediency.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:33 pm

Reuters version of the story hints that it's part of trying to get the US-Iran nuclear deal reinstated.
https://www.reuters.com/world/two-detai ... 022-03-16/

BBC version says the British repayment is "ring-fenced solely for humanitarian purposes" which might be a legal figleaf.

I think that’s right. As far as I know the British position was that the money was owed to the Iranian ministry of defence. However it couldn’t be paid as the ministry was under sanctions. Transferring the money for humanitarian purposes would be a way to avoid paying the ministry.

But as you write, that would just be a legal fig leaf. This is all about the politics. IMHO what’s changed is Russia. The UK, US and EU don’t want another crisis with Iran while they are trying to deal with Russia. They’ll hope that the 400 million will buy a quiet period in relations with Iran.

TBH I've never quite got why Iran is such a bogeyman in the region. Is it really any more morally repugnant than Saudi Arabia, for instance? (Actually, their stance on Israel is extremely bad come to think of it.)

I know they were less keen on selling oil to the West on the West's terms (see also Venezuela, which does at least kind of stand out in Latin America), and of course there was some Cold War stuff because of the Marxism. But is it mostly historical contingency that means Saudis get BMWs and Iranians get drone strikes?

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:31 pm

TBH I've never quite got why Iran is such a bogeyman in the region. Is it really any more morally repugnant than Saudi Arabia, for instance? (Actually, their stance on Israel is extremely bad come to think of it.)

I know they were less keen on selling oil to the West on the West's terms (see also Venezuela, which does at least kind of stand out in Latin America), and of course there was some Cold War stuff because of the Marxism. But is it mostly historical contingency that means Saudis get BMWs and Iranians get drone strikes?

I don't think the US has really got over the hostage crisis in the Carter administration, or the Second Oil Crisis, which is one factor.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:31 pm

TBH I've never quite got why Iran is such a bogeyman in the region. Is it really any more morally repugnant than Saudi Arabia, for instance? (Actually, their stance on Israel is extremely bad come to think of it.)

I know they were less keen on selling oil to the West on the West's terms (see also Venezuela, which does at least kind of stand out in Latin America), and of course there was some Cold War stuff because of the Marxism. But is it mostly historical contingency that means Saudis get BMWs and Iranians get drone strikes?

Major sponsor of militias in Syria, major backer of the Houthis, effectively trying to make Lebanon and Iraq into its puppets, blew up a Jewish centre in Argentina, literally launched about a dozen ballistic missiles at Iraq in the last couple of days...as well as a bunch of horrible stuff they share with Saudi re misogyny, homophobia and fundamentalism.

Oh and Iran isn't Marxist - the theocratic regime that hijacked the revolution killed off as many Marxists as it could in the 80s.

Saudi and Iran are cold war enemies. Both are foul regimes. Saudi has more oil. We need oil. We side with Saudi.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:31 pm

TBH I've never quite got why Iran is such a bogeyman in the region. Is it really any more morally repugnant than Saudi Arabia, for instance? (Actually, their stance on Israel is extremely bad come to think of it.)

I know they were less keen on selling oil to the West on the West's terms (see also Venezuela, which does at least kind of stand out in Latin America), and of course there was some Cold War stuff because of the Marxism. But is it mostly historical contingency that means Saudis get BMWs and Iranians get drone strikes?

Internally Iran is a far better state than Saudi, although still very bad by western standards. Mainly it's just geopolitics. We (the wider we) have chosen to side with Saudi in the cold war LPM mentions. Iran's stance towards Israel is indefensible, although it's more bark than bite.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:40 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:31 pm

TBH I've never quite got why Iran is such a bogeyman in the region. Is it really any more morally repugnant than Saudi Arabia, for instance? (Actually, their stance on Israel is extremely bad come to think of it.)

I know they were less keen on selling oil to the West on the West's terms (see also Venezuela, which does at least kind of stand out in Latin America), and of course there was some Cold War stuff because of the Marxism. But is it mostly historical contingency that means Saudis get BMWs and Iranians get drone strikes?

Major sponsor of militias in Syria, major backer of the Houthis, effectively trying to make Lebanon and Iraq into its puppets, blew up a Jewish centre in Argentina, literally launched about a dozen ballistic missiles at Iraq in the last couple of days...as well as a bunch of horrible stuff they share with Saudi re misogyny, homophobia and fundamentalism.

I mean they share all the horrible stuff at the beginning with Saudi Arabia too - major sponsor of militias in Syria, major backer of the non-Houthis, effectively trying to make the UAE and Bahrain its puppets, blew up the World Trade Centre…

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:40 pm

Oh and Iran isn't Marxist - the theocratic regime that hijacked the revolution killed off as many Marxists as it could in the 80s.

For sure, it's not now - but a leftist-Islamist Revolution put it pretty clearly on one side in the Cold War, and (much like Cuba) sometimes old habits die hard when it comes to sanctions etc.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:45 pm

Saudi and Iran are cold war enemies. Both are foul regimes. Saudi has more oil. We need oil. We side with Saudi.

I'm begging to understand. I will support whichever bloodthirsty theocracy produces most sunflower oil. The crisp supply must be defended at all costs.

People, Britain isn't making deals with either Saudi or Iran or any other government to get their oil.

Oli is bought and sold on the world market. The Saudis and Iranians are selling to dealers who then sell it on to others.

The Saudis are important due to their wealth and leadership in the MENA region.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:49 pm

People, Britain isn't making deals with either Saudi or Iran or any other government to get their oil.

Oli is bought and sold on the world market. The Saudis and Iranians are selling to dealers who then sell it on to others.

The Saudis are important due to their wealth and leadership in the MENA region.

Thanks Chops, yes. Similar to the idea that if we build loads of wind turbines at home we'll be self-sufficient and less reliant on global energy markets. Good luck convincing the multinationals who build the turbines that they can't sell the power to the highest bidder. Look at the deals for guaranteed prices for Hinkley for example.

State-owned petrobusinesses control the rate of production, and thus prices. The Saudis are big hitters in OPEC.

Increasing oil production is touted as a major negotiating point for Iran in the nuclear negotiations:

Shokouhi said a return of Iranian oil to global markets could happen within months and could certainly have a noticeable effect on global supply and prices, as the country has both reserves at the ready and infrastructure in place to pump out more.

Iran used to produce about four million barrels of crude per day following the nuclear deal’s implementation in 2016, about half of which it exported, but is now producing just more than 2.5 million barrels, indicating a potential for increasing capacity, the analyst said.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1 ... -lawmakers

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:36 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:49 pm

People, Britain isn't making deals with either Saudi or Iran or any other government to get their oil.

Oli is bought and sold on the world market. The Saudis and Iranians are selling to dealers who then sell it on to others.

The Saudis are important due to their wealth and leadership in the MENA region.

Thanks Chops, yes. Similar to the idea that if we build loads of wind turbines at home we'll be self-sufficient and less reliant on global energy markets. Good luck convincing the multinationals who build the turbines that they can't sell the power to the highest bidder. Look at the deals for guaranteed prices for Hinkley for example.

Yes, for renewables to truly be "freedom energy" generation needs to be combined with some form of protectionism.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:49 pm

People, Britain isn't making deals with either Saudi or Iran or any other government to get their oil.

Oli is bought and sold on the world market. The Saudis and Iranians are selling to dealers who then sell it on to others.

The Saudis are important due to their wealth and leadership in the MENA region.

That's factually incorrect.

It's a rigged market with government deals controlling who buys and sells. Saudi is an American puppet state propped up with western arms.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:44 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:36 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:49 pm

People, Britain isn't making deals with either Saudi or Iran or any other government to get their oil.

Oli is bought and sold on the world market. The Saudis and Iranians are selling to dealers who then sell it on to others.

The Saudis are important due to their wealth and leadership in the MENA region.

Thanks Chops, yes. Similar to the idea that if we build loads of wind turbines at home we'll be self-sufficient and less reliant on global energy markets. Good luck convincing the multinationals who build the turbines that they can't sell the power to the highest bidder. Look at the deals for guaranteed prices for Hinkley for example.

Yes, for renewables to truly be "freedom energy" generation needs to be combined with some form of protectionism.

or I guess it needs to be dispersed so widely that there's a genuine global market that a couple of big players can't hijack. Might be more likely tbh, there's wind, sun and water everywhere.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:53 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:44 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:36 pm

Thanks Chops, yes. Similar to the idea that if we build loads of wind turbines at home we'll be self-sufficient and less reliant on global energy markets. Good luck convincing the multinationals who build the turbines that they can't sell the power to the highest bidder. Look at the deals for guaranteed prices for Hinkley for example.

Yes, for renewables to truly be "freedom energy" generation needs to be combined with some form of protectionism.

or I guess it needs to be dispersed so widely that there's a genuine global market that a couple of big players can't hijack. Might be more likely tbh, there's wind, sun and water everywhere.

Interconnectors would be the pinch point, I suspect, rather than production per se. Eg if the UK depends on a big solar pipe from Morocco for a lot of its energy it wouldn't be able to suddenly switch to getting boatloads of sunshine from Australia.

Shipping old rocks around is much better understand than modern network-based capitalism.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:02 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:53 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:44 pm

Yes, for renewables to truly be "freedom energy" generation needs to be combined with some form of protectionism.

or I guess it needs to be dispersed so widely that there's a genuine global market that a couple of big players can't hijack. Might be more likely tbh, there's wind, sun and water everywhere.

Interconnectors would be the pinch point, I suspect, rather than production per se. Eg if the UK depends on a big solar pipe from Morocco for a lot of its energy it wouldn't be able to suddenly switch to getting boatloads of sunshine from Australia.

Shipping old rocks around is much better understand than modern network-based capitalism.

Yes, this is the point I would make. Electricity can’t be put in a huge ship and sailed round the world to the highest bidder. We can control where the interconnectors go and how big they are.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:12 pm

Yes, this is the point I would make. Electricity can’t be put in a huge ship and sailed round the world to the highest bidder.

It sort of could - hydrogen tankers, cryogenic compressed air tankers, or catalytic conversion of CO2 to methane/LNG. But not as efficiently as just shipping it over cables to where it's needed.