/

    Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

    Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

    To get started, first

    YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

      Obama faces tough call on Iran oil sanctions

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Just weeks after the election, President Barack Obama will be faced with a pivotal decision on oil sanctions on Iran, in which he will have to balance the need to stay tough on Tehran without pushing oil prices too high.

      In considering whether to extend a new series of six-month exemptions to Washington's oil sanctions, the administration must decide whether China, India, South Korea and other nations have done enough to wean themselves from Iranian oil.

      Forcing cuts that are too aggressive could fuel a new rally in oil prices, benefiting Iran and hurting allies. Accepting meager cuts risks criticism from Congress and Israel.

      The sanctions are aimed at slashing Iran's oil revenues to pressure it to stop efforts to enrich uranium to levels that could be used in weapons. Tehran has said its nuclear program is strictly for civilian purposes.

      On paper, the sanctions require Washington to continuously tighten the screws on Iran's exports "toward a complete cessation" of purchases, forcing importers to make deeper and deeper price and volume cuts in order to win "exceptions," or waivers.

      But the law allows the administration latitude to chart a middle ground in the sanctions, which have already proven more effective than some experts had forecast.

      The sanctions require that importers must demonstrate that they are making "significant" reductions every six months, as measured by volume and price. What constitutes a "significant" reduction is at the administration's discretion.

      "The point of this is that we would like to see a consistent and gradual reduction. That is the goal," said a U.S. government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

      Iran's oil exports hit a low of 860,000 barrels per day last month, down from 2.2 million bpd at the end of 2011. That reduction is already greater than some experts had forecast.

      Critics are keeping close watch. Obama is expected to face questions about whether he has been tough enough on Iran later on Monday during a foreign policy debate with Republican candidate Mitt Romney, their last debate before the November 6 presidential election.

      The New York Times reported on Sunday that the United States and Iran have agreed in principle to private, bilateral negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, but both nations denied the report.

      DIMINISHING RETURNS?

      For countries including China, India and South Korea, the deadline for new waivers is December.

      Even a key proponent of sanctions said he wonders about the need to force dramatically deeper cuts.

      "We've probably reached the point of diminishing returns with respect to Iran's oil exports," said Mark Dubowitz, the head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who has pushed for stronger sanctions on Iran.

      Dubowitz said it would take a great deal of work to cut global imports of Iranian oil much below 800,000 bpd. Lawmakers are now turning their attention to new types of sanctions that could more quickly hit Tehran's foreign reserves.

      A QUESTION OF "SIGNIFICANCE"

      So far, all major oil importers have been granted the exceptions. Without the waivers, the United States has the power to blacklist foreign banks handling the oil transactions from the U.S. financial system.

      Precisely what qualifies as "significant" is kept confidential, however, and may vary from buyer to buyer.

      "The law is remarkably vague about what the baseline is," said Jeff Colgan, a professor at American University in Washington.

      Japan had cut imports by 15-22 percent by the time it received its first waiver in March. It subsequently cut imports by more than a quarter each month except June, and won a second six-month waiver for the U.S. oil sanctions in September.

      Senators Robert Menendez and Mark Kirk who co-authored the oil sanctions law last year have told the administration they believe a minimum cut should be about 18 percent for any nation seeking a waiver renewal, achieved through price discounts or volume reductions, a point Menendez underscored in a recent interview.

      "We must make it clear - this is a big must - that absent some extraordinary circumstance, that we will not grant waivers to any nation that doesn't make our reduction benchmarks," Menendez told Reuters earlier this month.

      DELICATE BALANCE

      The administration is likely to carefully weigh the cuts required against the impact on prices, since price gains help Iran, hurt allies, and harm the global economy, said Trevor Houser, a partner with Rhodium Group, a New York-based policy and economic consultancy.

      "If you tighten the screws too hard and it causes oil prices to spike, then you both undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions and you erode support for the sanctions from other countries," said Houser, a former State Department adviser.

      Houser questioned how far Washington could push the sanctions while also keeping oil markets relatively stable.

      Saudi Arabia, which has been pumping oil at its fastest rate in 30 years in order to make up for the diminishing exports from fellow OPEC member Iran, has limited additional capacity to tap if shipments fall further, analysts say.

      The administration likely will face the most political scrutiny for its decision on a renewed waiver for China. China officially opposes the U.S. sanctions, but secured a waiver in June after a contract dispute resulted in steep import cuts in the first half.

      Although its imports of Iranian oil rose in June to an 11-month high, they dropped in July and August to 25 percent below the same months in 2011, the most recent months for which data is available. China's first-half imports from Iran were down 20 percent from a year ago.

      "China is a very different story and that's where we fear the administration will cook the books to give China a ‘get-out-of-jail-free' card in order to avoid a showdown with America's largest creditor," a senior Congressional aide said, on condition of anonymity.

      With much bigger trade issues at stake, American University's Colgan believes a waiver for China is likely. "The trade consequences are unknown and potentially very bad if they start a trade war over this," he said.

      (Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Timothy Gardner; Editing by Eric Walsh)

      More Politics News

       

      936 comments

      • ishtar127a  •  5 days ago
        Simple solution: get off the foreign oil teat.
        • MichaelD 4 days ago
          I wasn't even talking about selling it to outside nations; it makes complete sense not to sell any of it. (Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.)
          That doesn't even matter though; even if the rest of the world ran out and we still had it, it wouldn't do us much good. The immediate collapse of the global economy would play merry hell on our own economy, and the infrastructure doesn't exist in this country to be 100% self-sufficient. We would have to send at least a very small amount to other countries, if for no other reason than to stay economically afloat. Also, you did not read the second entry well, because you didn't account for what I said:

          "The real reason we are militarily active in other countries is to destabilize their economies to the point where 1. We can pressure them into selling us their non-renewable resources for pennies on the dollar, and 2. Eventually hedge them out of competing for what little is left, (a la demand destruction.)"

          Given that statement, you can see we are in the middle of gathering resources, not selling them.

          Natural gas deposits are not in much better shape than oil are; consider that right now Canada exports 60% of it's deposits it recovers to us. Given that Canada has an absolute enormous amount of natural gas, that's troubling from a domestic standpoint.

          Environmental concerns aside (and unlike most people, I'm not opposed to any type of drilling or fracking for natural gas) there are still too many hurdles for it to last long. The main problem with fracking is not environmental contamination, but the inability to predict when the well will run dry. With Oil well as least you have declining recover over time as the act of pumping oil out relieves geologic pressure, which in turn means less coming out for the same energy we exert on the surface. When you frack Natural Gas, you restore the pressure immediately, resulting in a situation where you will have a constant or almost constant stream of gas, which can then run out suddenly.

          Finally, there isn't much we can do to head this disaster off. Even if a CEO of an oil corporation wanted to warn the public to use less, or sell gas at a lower price, or encourage consumer self control, it would be illegal for him to do so. ALL PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO ONLY WHAT IS IN THE COMPANIES BEST INTEREST, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. This means that companies are bound by both US and International trade regulations to be loyal only to the bottom line - not to stability country, people or any sense of morality. You must remember these are MULTINATIONAL corporations we are talking about. Just because you think of them as "American," or part of an "American tradition" (think Ford, Exxon, etal.) doesn't mean they think of themselves as such.

          Also, your post still does not account for limited rate of extraction in an economy that requires growth (and this more extraction per day.) As I said, it really doesn't matter if you can put 30 million barrels out of the ground per day; if it's still 5 million short of what's needed, it doesn't matter how much you have total.

          I'm noticing, however, that ever scenario you suggest puts the date of disaster after you expect to die, which suggests that the line "America has enough oil and natural gas to last more than 100 years at double the current U.S. consumption" is little more than simple cognitive dissonance at play.
      • George J  •  5 days ago
        Saudi Arabia has always said that they will make up the difference in Oil Production! So! No Problem! Unless the Greedy Oil Speculators want to make a phony issue out of it to raise world oil prices!
      • Robert  •  5 days ago
        oops,that article was released a few weeks to early
        • Friendly Commentor 4 days ago
          I won't be voting Obama either.
      • GT  •  5 days ago
        "Stay tough on Iran without pushing oil prices too high?? Hello?? They are already too high.
      • Kathryn  •  5 days ago
        This article irritated me talking about how the US will have to decide if other nations have done enough to wean themselves off Iranian oil. Jeez, what are we, the rulers of the world?
      • Mohamad  •  5 days ago
        "Just weeks after the election, President Barack Obama will be faced with a pivotal decision on oil sanctions". HUH???????????????????

        Rampton & Gardner - are two two just fluken stupid??????????????
      • coup d'etat  •  5 days ago
        what's the point of drilling for oil if we're just going to send it to china? oil production is up, and it's our largest export
        • Michael 5 days ago
          sorry corporate
      • Vincenzo  •  5 days ago
        $5 per gallon gasoline is going to break the back of California. This was the last straw for the near bankrupt state and its overextended residents.
      • WayToGo  •  3 days ago
        $14 trillion divided by $90 / barrell…. That'll work !
      • HERSHMAN  •  5 days ago
        Easy answer...Power semi-trucks, school busses, garbage trucks on natural gas...Just do it.See Pickens Plan. Easy answer...Devalue oil..America has an ambundance of natural gas.
        • Michael O 4 days ago
          Also install hydrogen / oxygen generators in all those vehicles and get %50 better fuel mileage!
      • Engineer  •  5 days ago
        Is it just me or did the article start with somethin like, "within 1 week after the elections, Obama will have to...." Isn't that jumping the gun just a little?
      • Gary  •  5 days ago
        If Obama is squeezing Iran so hard, why is it oil prices have been slowly falling?
      • Marshall Law Cle OH  •  5 days ago
        Hasn't anyone of those talking head experts on the national news put two and two together? Why have gas prices plummeted 40 cents in the last two weeks?($3.19 a gallon) Could it be beacuse our dear friends the Saudis and Kuwaitis through third party distributors attributed to third party countries have been flooding the market with oil? Why? Because the devil you know( in the USA election) is better than the one you don't know. Can't wait 'til prices here reach $2.79 the week of the election , in the flyover country of Ohio.
      • Mike  •  3 days ago
        Why don't we stop listening to Israel's complete lack of evidence and DUMP these sanctions? I was telling y'all six months ago that the people hurt by sanctions are oil consumers, not the producers. The producers can always easily find a buyer. In fact, they'll make MORE money as petroleum becomes a black market commodity.
      • George  •  5 days ago
        Even Russia with large deposities of crude buys iranian oil...
      • John  •  4 days ago
        what would you do? speak up and put your name on it. you are all cowards.
      • Killerbee  •  5 days ago
        Let China worry about it. They have more cars to feed.
      • Ron  •  3 days ago
        Yes or No so hard?
      • Highly Motivated  •  3 days ago
        Countries who do business with Iran are showing the world they accept the threat of global nuclear war and they also should also be listed as the enemies of the USA.
      • Anhanper  •  4 days ago
        Mitt will handle Iran and China in his sleep..unfortunately, like the 12 million jobs he ll create, that just another dream.
      • Case of blond girl beggar strikes nerve in Mexico

        At a busy intersection, a girl with a high half ponytail looks at you as she begs for coins. There is dirt beneath her fingernails and her pink shirt looks unwashed. The image in the photo could fit thousands of impoverished Mexican children who sell gum or beg for money in the streets, but for one thing: The girl in this picture is blond.

      • Gingrich: Mourdock's Comments Reflect Position of 'Virtually Every Catholic' in the U.S
        Gingrich: Mourdock's Comments Reflect Position of 'Virtually Every Catholic' in the U.S

        This morning on “This Week� former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended controversial comments made by Richard Mourdock, in which he suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape were “intended� by God. Gingrich said that the Indiana Republican Senate’s candidate’s words reflected the position of “virtually every Catholic� in...

      • Madonna booed after touting Obama in La. Concert
        Madonna booed after touting Obama in La. Concert

        Madonna drew boos and triggered a walkout by several concertgoers after she touted President Barack Obama on her "MDNA Tour" in New Orleans.

      • New England's vampire panic
        New England's vampire panic

        In 19th-century Rhode Island, says Abigail Tucker, farmers began digging up graves in search of vampires

      • Donald Trump Unleashed: The Mogul Responds To Obama Challenge Backlash
        Donald Trump Unleashed: The Mogul Responds To Obama Challenge Backlash

        Where others might cut and run, Donald Trump doubles down.Fresh off his offer to donate $5 million to charity if President Barack Obama releases his college and passport records, The Donald sat down with Access Hollywood's Billy Bush to explain his motives.

      • '91 perfect storm skipper leery of Hurricane Sandy

        Ray Leonard knows a thing or two about monster storms. In fact, he's the skipper of the Satori, the 32-foot sailboat that rode out THE perfect storm 21 years ago.

      • Woman set on fire during C-section loses suit against doctor: report

        (Reuters) - A New York jury has ruled that an obstetrician is not liable for his former patient's abdomen catching fire during a Caesarean section in an incident that left her with a third-degree burn, a newspaper reported on Saturday. The Post-Standard of Syracuse said a jury in Onondaga County state Supreme Court decided the case on Thursday in favor of Dr. Stephen Brown regarding the 2010 surgery at Crouse Hospital. The fire was the result of a surgical tool igniting an alcohol-based antiseptic applied to the patient's skin, the newspaper said. ...

      • Ronald McDonald violates restraining order after entering McDonald’s restaurant

        It was a very unhappy meal for a British man named Ronald McDonald who admitted to violating a restraining order when he followed his wife into a McDonald's restaurant. "Mr. McDonald followed his ex-wife along a number of streets. She parked in McDonald's in Westwood Cross and he followed her in," said prosecutor Julie Farbrace. [...]

      Follow Yahoo! News