IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

[icm63]

See what happened to $USD, OIL, GOLD and Stocks in late OCT 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC, plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo" in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" during the Yom Kippur war; it lasted until March 1974.^[1]

$USD spiked up for a short time, not as much as OIL, but it did put negative pressure on GOLD, the sell off on gold was a great BUYing opportunity.

Could the bombing of IRAN do it again for gold bugs...
$OIL.png
$USDIndex.png
$GOLD.gif
Stocks.gif

[Anon21456]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Very interesting charts ! And I'm glad to see another user of metastock.

[goadam1]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

You are really stuck on this Iran idea. No war with Iran. None. Not going to happen. The US isn't up for it. Period. That whole eastern europe missile shield thing show there is horse trading for sanctions. There isn't money for War. The amen corner is out of power not in power. No War. Not going to happen.

See what happened to $USD, OIL, GOLD and Stocks in late OCT 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis


$USD spiked up for a short time, not as much as OIL, but it did put negative pressure on GOLD, the sell off on gold was a great BUYing opportunity.

Could the bombing of IRAN do it again for gold bugs...
[ATTACH]2256[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2257[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2258[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2259[/ATTACH]

[icm63]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Neville Chamberlain Proves With Hitler’s Signature, that Appeasement and Talks works. - NO WAR IN EUROPE ! 1939
chamberlain.jpg

Yeah that worked out real good !

There may not be WAR, but there will be a BOMBING !

[goadam1]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

one day? okay. You have had a couple of definite opinions with moving timelines. Put a date on it with an over/under odd. Money on the table. Still waiting for your market saves the dollar. Your idea makes sense but who knows what happens.

Neville Chamberlain Proves With Hitler’s Signature, that Appeasement and Talks works. - NO WAR IN EUROPE ! 1939
[ATTACH]2262[/ATTACH]

Yeah that worked out real good !

There may not be WAR, but there will be a BOMBING !

[goadam1]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Dude, I've been waiting for this bombing for 5 years. We'll see. Plus, Israel will not do it without US support, tacit or otherwise.

Neville Chamberlain Proves With Hitler’s Signature, that Appeasement and Talks works. - NO WAR IN EUROPE ! 1939
[ATTACH]2262[/ATTACH]

Yeah that worked out real good !

There may not be WAR, but there will be a BOMBING !

[goadam1]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

There is a war in the middle east. Several. It hasn't helped the dollar or much of anything. You are on the wrong track.

Neville Chamberlain Proves With Hitler’s Signature, that Appeasement and Talks works. - NO WAR IN EUROPE ! 1939
[ATTACH]2262[/ATTACH]

Yeah that worked out real good !

There may not be WAR, but there will be a BOMBING !

[Tybee Island]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Fred's excellent graph that shows the dollar's response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and hence, is more than compelling.

Any attack on Iran will be negative for the Dollar in my opinion. Got Gold?

[GRG55]

Neville Chamberlain Proves With Hitler’s Signature, that Appeasement and Talks works. - NO WAR IN EUROPE ! 1939
[ATTACH]2262[/ATTACH]

Yeah that worked out real good !

There may not be WAR, but there will be a BOMBING !

Bombing, but no war? So what's the connection with Chamberlain?


Let me guess:

• Chamberlain should have bombed Berlin instead of visiting it; or
• Hitler should have bombed Britain instead of hosting Chamberlain; or
• Both of them should have bombed Churchill;

any of which would have resulted in a BOMBING! but no WAR...:rolleyes:

[icm63]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

YOu can have a bombing but no war, for sure !

Look at the Libya example...fired rockets, failed, NO WAR !

I SAID above expect a SPIKE IN THE DOLLAR on the bombing, NOT A TREND CHANGE !!!!

[icm63]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Fred's excellent graph that shows the dollar's response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and hence, is more than compelling.

Link please

[GRG55]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Link please

Here:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...26629#poststop

It's on a thread you started, sandwiched between two posts of yours.

[icm63]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Strator.com : Changed there minds, military action of some sort is most likely !

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...lear_situation

Ramifications of an Israeli Strike

An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do.
Some have pointed out that the Iranians would be hurting themselves as much as the West, as this would cripple their energy exports. And it must be remembered that 40 percent of globally traded oil exports pass through Hormuz. The effect of mining the Persian Gulf would be devastating to oil prices and to the global economy at a time when the global economy doesn’t need more grief. But the economic pain Iran would experience from such a move could prove tolerable relative to the pain that would be experienced by the world’s major energy importers. Meanwhile, the Russians would be free to export oil at extraordinarily high prices.
Given the foregoing, the United States would immediately get involved in such a conflict by engaging the Iranian navy, which in this case would consist of small boats with outboard motors dumping mines overboard. Such a conflict would be asymmetric warfare, naval style. Indeed, given that the Iranians would rapidly respond — and that the best way to stop them would be to destroy their vessels no matter how small before they have deployed — the only rational military process would be to strike Iranian boats and ships prior to an Israeli airstrike. Since Israel doesn’t have the ability to do that, the United States would be involved in any such conflict from the beginning. Given that, the United States might as well do the attacking. This would increase the probability of success dramatically, and paradoxically would dampen the regional reaction compared to a unilateral Israeli strike.
When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control. In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control.
It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act.
It should also be remembered that Obama reads intelligence reports from Moscow, Tehran and Berlin. He knows the consensus about him among foreign leaders, who don’t hold him in high regard. That consensus causes foreign leaders to take risks; it also causes Obama to have an interest in demonstrating that they have misread him.
We are reminded of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis only in this sense: We get the sense that everyone is misreading everyone else. In the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans didn’t believe the Soviets would take the risks they did and the Soviets didn’t believe the Americans would react as they did. In this case, the Iranians believe the United States will play its old game and control the Israelis. Washington doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu may see this as the decisive moment. And the Russians believe Netanyahu will be controlled by an Obama afraid of an even broader conflict than he already has on his hands.
The current situation is not as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, but it has this in common: Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap. Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. We aren’t so sure.

[GRG55]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Strator.com : Changed there minds, military action of some sort is most likely !

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...lear_situation

...An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do....

Still think there's going to be a bombing directly by, or sanctioned by, the USA? ;)

Bet you and Stratfor didn't factor this in...

[icm63]

Re: IRAN 09?? vs 1973 Oil Crisis

Does Nobel take refunds !