Can Iran still import gasoline?

Rephrasing

They gotta use oil for fuel or paper money

Yeah... that's one thing that always got me wondering about Iran.  Oil exports are obviously important to Iran.  However, Iran has shit for oil refineries and, as a result, Iran is in this awkward trade scheme of exporting oil for other countries to refine, then importing refined forms of its own product.

Gasoline is an EXTREMELY touchy subject in Iranian politics.  The Iranian government has been subsidizing gasoline purchases for years in an effort to reduce economic burdens on average citizens.  However, the high costs of the subsidy have brought the Iranian government to, on a number of occasions, attempt to reduce the impact of the subsidy.  For example, in 2008 (before the financial crisis, when oil prices were still high), the Iranian government attempted to ration gasoline for just this purpose... the result?  Massive protests, government capitulates, keeps the subsidies in place without change.

The reason is simple.  Gas prices in Iran, just like in the US, are an important part of Iranian spending, and a very visible representation of the government's economic health.  However, unlike the US, the prices are small enough to where much smaller changes can have much larger impacts.  Additionally, unlike the US, the prices in Iran are determined largely by the Iranian government due to their subsides, an thus when Iranian gas prices increase, there is nobody but the Iranian government to blame.

Oh, and I've discussed this a couple times before, but we know very well that the Iranian people are extremely responsive to economic problems.  The financial crisis forced Iran into a confrontation between the government and the Tehran financial sector over an extremely small tax.  Not to mention the 2009 Iranian election, which brought people forward in droves to fight the government in power, only to see the election most likely rigged against them.  But regardless, unless the Arab Spring crackdown wore the Iranian people down, you can expect that the Iranian people will start up some sort of protesting when they start seeing financial problems.

This actually decreases the likelihood of war starting, as it forces Israel to give sanctions a chance.

"An attack would eliminate all opposition in Iran like 9/11 in the US did."

Did 9/11 really do that? Pretty sure there was considerable opposition when the war in Iraq initially started.

Unfortunately, when the regime was most destabilized, Elder Statesman President Dr. Obama told the people to go [play by] themselves; he wanted to negotiate with their tyrant dictator leadership, not support the people having a democratic role in their own fates.

Fail.

The urgent problem now is that Iran is so close that this fact alone makes convincing them to abandon their nuclear arms aspirations willingly all but impossible. They've been working toward this--and preparing for and enduring Western sanctions--for _decades_.

Sure, it hurts them. This, much more than the joke sanctions before now. But they're prepared to weather this storm for the very brief period between now and a nuclear-armed Iran. They're not without peers with beneficial economic arrangements in the region whose assistance can be bought.

Their people could stop them. But they're going to try.

Paininside:
"with israel having nukes and several other countrys in the area. why shouldnt they?"

Israel is a democratic nation. It's the only democratic nation whose rules have the sovereign consent of those they govern in the entire region. The Israeli people have no desire to use their nuclear weapons. Contrast this with the Iranian officials (w/o democratic consent, w/o accountability to the Iranian people) who have spoke of their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and you get the answer to your question.

Edit: no masking X(

My point remains. The actions of Israel go on with the consent of the governed. Whether or not the governed have become ignorant, apathetic masses who rule themselves irresponsibly is another matter. Such irresponsibility can never detract from the fact that tyrants and dictators do not have the consent of the governed, and their rule can never be considered legitimate by any measure. Peoples can have rights to do things for themselves. Dictators cannot.

Dictators get away with whatever they can in regard to their people and the rest of the world. There's no moral or philosophical equivalency between democratic nations having things and dictators having things. A democratic nation (ie. a people) may argue it has the right to something. Dictators have no such rights, they have whatever they can get and whatever we let them get. There's no moral or philosophical obligation to let a dictator do something as there is to let a people.

Yes. The United States is ruled by pieces of trash because the American people, by and large, are ignorant, apathetic morons who don't know what's best for themselves and don't care enough to better themselves into aware, principled human beings who don't elect trailer trash who get us 15.5 trillion in debt and bomb other nations whose business is none of ours.

Ridiculously long sentence award goes to me!

My point is that it's our fault that we elect trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons. If enough Americans cared about the truth, responsible decision making, and minding our own business, we wouldn't have been interfering where we don't belong for decades. There is a mechanism by which we can fix our nation, dependent purely on the people wanting to.

Iranians have no such mechanism. When they try to communicate messages of change, they're gunned down in the streets.

Needing only to have the will VS getting gunned down if anyone tries is a pretty big difference.

The difference is that if a policy conflicts with the will of the people, the people do have power to change things.  So if one President engages in a war that later turns out to be largely unpopular *cough*Iraq*cough*, voters empirically will vote for someone who reverses that policy because reversal of that policy is a politically advantageous option.

It's just empirically untrue to say there is no accountability whatsoever.  Otherwise, explain the 2008 election. 

"My point is that it's our fault that we elect trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons."

I would have to disagree with this in so far as it is not the public's fault.  You can't blame the voting public for their selection of candidate when every candidate presented is trashy, deceitful, corrupt, and moronic.  The question is not why we keep electing trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons.  The question is why is it that trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons are the only options presented to the public as candidates.

I would contend that it is because the democratic process isn't feasible in our societies for the following reasons:

Democracies succeed when the voting public are well-informed. Has the public been kept well informed by the mass-media?  No. Has the public had the opportunity to keep themselves well-informed?  No.

Democracies succeed when society is reasonably egalitarian in its wealth distribution.  Are our democracies reasonably egalitarian in our wealth distributions?  Hell no.

Democracies succeed when its democratic process is as more akin to that of a direct democracy rather than representative democracy.  Are our democracies more direct rather than representative in their democratic processes?  Not at all.

How corrupted are the representatives of our democracies?  Quite corrupt.

Democracies succeed when their institutions which are to provide checks an balances on state power are kept independent, influential, and effectual.  Consider the municipal and state / provincial governments, courts and justice systems, the senate, unions, business and corporate lobby-groups, special-interest groups, press associations, academic and scientific associations, etc.  How independent are they from government?  Not very if at all.  How influential are they?  Hardly influential at all.  How effectual are they?  They are pretty much redundant in the current political climate.   And do they in fact provide a check and balance on executive power?  Nope.

I think I agree with about 20% of the garbage put in here. Einstein and Zarf made some very good points but other than that the majority of it is largely based on biased opinions that are not well educated to begin with.

1. Thinking that someone will not use nukes just because it will bring back more on them is a poor reason to allow Iran to have them. Dictators of that sort can not be trusted with that sort of power for the simple reason that they just might use them just to spite the world and put their name in history for it. Secondly, if you think that those countries have the same security standards of those in Europe and the USA you are wrong. The ability for foreign forces or even dirty members of their own government could gain control and use them for whatever purpose they desired. Some people believe it or not, actually want to see the world burn for no other reason than to watch it burn. (yes i quoted the joker)

2. If you actually are educated in American economics (and European for that matter) you will know that there is little that goes on in the world that does not directly effect your economy. Especially in countries in Africa and the Middle East who are major producers of oil which most economies heavily rely on. That being said, if your economy is reliant on how world events play out, then at some point and time you have to step in and start to "police" how things go down in order to protect yourself. To blindly say "you should just mind your own business" is a childish term in an adult world. Countries are not as they used to be any longer...when one country makes a silly move it effects MANY countries throughout the world in ways that 90% of the population would not even see.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not expensive because we had to send troops over there, they werent bad for business because we had to fight, nor were they wrong decisions. They were the right decisions with bad decisions following them. America was created through war, it has benefited through war its entire existence, and that is never going to change. The problem comes in when you feel that you must rebuild or even improve the country you have conquered because you feel indebted to them for invading. That philosophy in and of itself is where so many people go wrong and now the USA is finding that out. Between the costs of rebuilding, improving, losing money, and having it stolen by shady businesses the wars have turned into a financial nightmare for the American "business" of war.

3. I am in the United States Military and I have absolutely no problem stating that I disagree with most of what Obama has done with this countries direction. That being said, I do not feel that he is pushing our country towards war with Iran and is rather trying to avoid an altercation between Israel and Iran. With all the mounting tension in the Middle East between Syria, Egypt, and multiple other countries all it will take is a slight misstep by someone like Israel or Iran to start another world war. And if you think that these countries will not be the catalyst for another world war you are wrong!

The Middle East is the economic backbone of the entire world (primarily due to oil but not limited to just that), it is the security/strategical position for ANY major world power in existence, and it is the most volatile place in the entire world to top it off! Add in all those things and if you take a step back and look behind the curtains you will see those big world powers jockeying for position there in all 3 aspects. Russia and China can not afford to let the US have control of the Middle East because it directly links them in the case of another world war and also allows their economies to be controlled. On the flip side, with China already dominating such a huge portion of the world market the US knows that as China gains more and more position in the Middle East they will be forced to buy into China allowing them to actually own our economy entirely.

To be certain, these "tensions" in the Middle East have very little to do with the actual countries located there and more to do with the major world powers than people realise. So yes, it is our business what goes on over there!