ING Memo on Iran -- Serious warning or Rumor-mongering?

[Leopolds Ghost]

I thought this belonged in LBN, because we are always being exhorted
to post News in LBN, not GD. However, I searched for discussion about this on GD and could not find any.

Here is the original thread, it is in the Economics forum.

A lot of people are highly skeptical, despite MSNBC going ape-shit
over all of this (and talking as if they knew it was in the cards
for years -- but weren't certain enough to say so.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x23468

Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran

Michael Roston
Published: Monday January 15, 2007

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Major_investment_bank_issues_warning_on_0115.html

Bank sees February or March timeline if Israel strikes

Warning that investors might be "in for a shock,"
a major investment bank has told the financial community
that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing
could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned.

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled
"Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its
nuclear facilities."

<snip>

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact,
if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why
a strike might go forward.

<snip>

The ING memo was first sent to RAW STORY by an anonymous tip and
confirmed Monday by staff on the bank's emerging markets office,
who passed along the Jan. 15 update. The full PDF documents can
be downloaded at this link for the Jan. 9 report, and this link
for the Jan. 15 update.

<snip>

[no_hypocrisy]

1. My take: Either ING knows "something" or it's covering its ass just

in case there is an invasion and all hell breaks lose marketwise.

[jpak]

3. Iran's Bushehr reactor begins its initial fueling in March

and is scheduled to begin operations in September.

The clock is ticking...

[northzax]

2. it's their job

to predict what the effects of such a low probability/high impact event would be. welcome to the wonderful world of futuring.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. If it's such a low-probability event, why'd we engage in an act of war against Iran? n/t

[northzax]

5. I can see this is going to be a logical discussion

and therefore a total and complete waste of my time.

We are not going to war with Iran. the memo in question refers to an Israeli strike on Iran. How do I know we aren't going to war with Iran? Because we don't have the soldiers to go to war with Iran.

and in the lingo, 'low probability' means below 25% chance of occuring in the time frame specified. not something you want to bet on, probably, but you should be prepared in case it does happen.

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. OK, I won't bring logic into it, but we already fired the first shot.

I guess Bush was really hoping Iran would not respond,

(NOT)

because he knew that the US did not have the means to respond with an air-strike,

(NOT)

if Iran called our bluff by responding to an armed incursion on the Iranian consulate.

Ergo, we must know for a fact that Iran isn't going to attack us, Right?

some sort of side-agreement, so we can carry on some sort of shadow war with Iranian paramilitary units inside Iraq WITHOUT risking an invasion by Iranian regulars.

Or maybe Bush is stupid and doesn't realize that the death squads Iran is funding answer to SCIRI, a ruling party of the Iraq government, which is already thoroughly infiltrated by Iranians.

[northzax]

8. let me introduce you to a little concept we like to call

"sovereign states" The US did the whole Iranian Consulate mess. this particular report, which you have no doubt thuroughly read, details the impact and attack by Israel on Iran might have.

now, in case you are having some geography issues...

the United States:


Israel:



they don't really look that much alike, do they? Seems to me a report about the actions of say, Israel, is not neccesarily a reflection on the actions of, say, the United States (in case you didn't follow, we're the big one on the top)

because I can tell you what the global financial reaction would be to a US attack on Iran: total chaos.

[HeeBGBz]

9. Well, aren't you just a joy to be around

You don't have to be a snippy snotball about it.

[northzax]

10. I figured that anyone who couldn't tell the difference

between a report about attacks by Israel and one on attacks by the US probably needed either a geography lesson or to read the article the OP linked to. one of them.

[generaldemocrat]

7. I'd say rumor mongering....

I think that Chimpy Co. is merely posturing to show the Iranians that they have the capability to hit them despite being tied down in Iraq. Even if they wanted a war with Iran, it's just not feasible....launching airstrikes or invading accomplishes nothing. Doesn't even guarantee that it would knock out their nuke program and in addition to that the Iranian populace will rally around their govt, meanwhile their govt will cause trouble all over the Mid East in retaliation.

Also, Ayatollah Chimpaholah doesn't have the carte blanche he had back in 2003. We have a more vigilant Congress right now.