Business
Clal says costs too high for Iran strike
Reuters
Published: 11.11.11, 14:43
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
6 Talkbacks for this article
1. The creation of the state of Israel
Ben ,   Chutzlaaretz   (11.11.11)
Was also an unfavorable economic enterprise. It would have also been cheaper for the US and Britain to sign a peace treaty with Hitler. If the point is that attacking Iran comes at a high price.. well Duhh! If it wasn't, they would have already been attacked!
2. MONEY SHOULD NOT BE THE ISSUE
LAWRENCE ,   SAFED ISRAEL   (11.11.11)
And what of the cost of inaction ?
3. EXCUSE ME !!! WHAT WOULD BE THE COST...
Ben-Africa   (11.12.11)
... of doing nothing considering Iran's control of the Strait of Ormuz ? How much would cost Iranian control of oil transportation and OPEP. How much would cost the submission of Arab nations in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Egypt, should Iran turn nuclear? How much would cost if American have to leave their bases in Persian Gulf? Clal didn't make an honest analysis; perhaps it is not in their interest.
4. There Is Another Way To Look At It - Mine :)
Ariel Ben Yochanan ,   Kfar Tapuah, Efraim   (11.12.11)
B"H What if the war replaced the general sense of uncertainty with certainty? What if stock exchanges reacted with euphoria, causing commodity prices like oil, gold and silver to shrink? What if dollar and euro reinforced? With other words, I'm bullish. The rest is politics.
5. Cost Will Be Even Higher If No Action
(11.13.11)
Other than sanctions are persued? For The Best Defence Is A BETTER OFFENCE!!! EMMES ?
6. A double edged sword
Raphael ,   Netanya   (11.13.11)
Blocking Hormuz strait may backfire: If no fuel can get out of the Gulf, this would be a tragic issue for the 80 million iranians, whose only export and foreign cash source is oil. No comparison with the thinly populated arab oil producers, who may quickly switch to pipe lines to the Red Sea or the Mediterranean.
Back to article