bbc experts comment. iran attack unpredictable, page-2

Attack on Iran = global disaster, not permanent but nevertheless global economic upheaval. It won't benefit us for some time, if at all but the Israeli's are probably paranoid enough to pay no heed for the damage they will wreak. Perhaps they should just get on with it? However they won't achieve anything without US power to back them as the links you have provided confirm and all they will do is replace a threat with a mess.

Jordinson inherited a long dead asset in Mehdiabad. It was lost in the time of Rob Murdoch, 2006 and went absolutely no where under Frank Reid who was brought on board specifically for the mid East expertise you admire nobull. Both Rob and Frank have broader mid east experience, in Rob's case specifically Iran, it is irrelevant to the recalcitrant Iranians. The best thing Frank achieved was to recognise UCL was bankrupt on Mehdiabad and needed a new asset - Sandpiper. At that point we had a future again and I am deeply grateful to him for it.

Personally i think there were three lines of action for Jordinson and UCL in these circumstances. We are basically powerless to effect any others:
- sue
- walk away
- keep things ticking over until things change

I would have actioned the first. The second would be justifiable but might as well hold off for the third just in case any change is favourable to us which is the action they chose. Of course there is no reason to think regime change would actually be any better, most likely, as in Egypt, entrenched interests will still be in control. How can anyone forecast how we would be treated after a change? It's an impossibility.

I'm not convinced you are thinking really rationally on this nobull and thus are effectively tilting at windmills. To all practical purposes Mehdiabad is gone. Can it be recovered? Maybe, if we get extra ordinarily lucky but you can't make decisions on that basis. Sandpiper is real, here and now. UCL has to act to protect their interests there and deem it necessary to fight back against MAK. If doing so inadvertently delivers a bigger share to Mawarid of something currently worth zero but brings security at Sandpiper then it's a side consequence of a rational decision. The thing is Mawarid will have to put up plenty of cash to achieve that gain on Mehdiabad - you will have the same opportunity and at their disadvantage. Indeed you have it now to increase your share at nearly half the price Mawarid are going to pay.

I see no perversity in UCLs current path, rather rationality. I realise you are concerned at the accounting treatment of Mehdiabad but that is just mark to market method, the value will go back on if ever it returns. In the meantime the accounting of Mehdiabad does not give it away to any third party because these transactions are ultimately all occurring relative to the market price of UCL and the market puts no value on Mehdiabad, it discounts the 18 million to zero. Even if the 18 million was on the books it wouldn't shift the market price 1 cent and Mawarid wouldn't have to pay any more for the shares they gain.