It Really Is About Oil
[Guest post by DRJ]
According to the President, America would take action against Iran if it disrupted oil supplies.
Did I say the President? I meant the Democrat’s choice for President, Hillary Clinton:
“Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies.
“I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions,” Clinton said. The presidential candidate spoke at a town hall meeting with 300 people at a high school in a Democratic stronghold in early voting South Carolina.
The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments “would be devastating to the world economy.“
It even sounds like Hillary might be willing to take unilateral action … and hope the world will understand:
“If the U.S. took military action as a result, she said, “I would hope that the world would see that was an action of last resort, not first resort. Because we need the world to agree with us about the threat that Iran poses to everyone.”
Obviously oil is vital to the world economy and America’s interests. Problems in the Middle East should be a high priority for the US – among many concerns, not just for oil. Any Presidential candidate who claims otherwise is naive or dishonest.
I’m glad Hillary said this and I hope she means it, but I expect anyone who wrongly criticized Bush about oil or unilateral action to hold Hillary to the same standard.
— DRJ
When was this war ever NOT about oil? Iraqui freedom is a nice side effect (and excuse for invading) if we can get there but a stable, US controlled? uh leveraged? oil supply had to have been one of the more important motivations for the war in the first place. (Yah NEVER did and never will buy the WMD bs). I agree with DRJ, lets hold her to the same standard, and expect her (if, God forbid, she gets elected) to be as ruthless and secretive as the current admin. is about securing the country’s oil supply. While we’re at is lets hope she is more competent too. I primarily hope she doesn’t get into office though. No more Bushes, No more Clintons.
EdWood (2df183) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:56 amEd – Were we buying Iraqi oil before we deposed Saddam? I thought we were trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and/or fossil fuels. If the enviroweenies thought for a few minutes they’d realize how ridiculous the war for oil claim sounds. Drilling off Florida, California, ANWR gives us plenty of opportunities here to reduce foreign dependence, plus investing in nuclear makes sense. No Democrats have got the stones to tell the enviroweenies to fuck off that we need to do what’s right for the country and make compromises.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/13/2007 @ 1:03 pmShe’s pandering to the people who like war. It doesn’t surprise me at all — she knows how to play lip service to people, that’s for sure.
“Gas is a couple bucks a gallon more expensive — LET’S GO TO WAR!”
That’s not even a reason — it’s an excuse. You wanted to go to war anyway. Bush told you they’re evil, and you’re not going to stop until you’ve killed the “evil” ones. The “reason” is just to sway the people still on the fense.
And don’t give me this “oil is vital to American interests” crap. IRAN oil isn’t vital to American interests — it just adds to the supply. There are plenty of other places to get oil. You just want to kill some Iranians, to make you forget about that butt-whipping defeat in Iraq.
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:02 pmAren’t you confusing her with Monica?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:05 pmPhil —
If ignorance is bliss you must be in nirvana.
B. King (2d0395) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:11 pmB King, I think for comments like this, I’ll just link to this response, which points out how they all go — since they all fit the same pattern.
see here
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:22 pmPhil #3:
Anything that affects the world supply of oil affects America’s ability to get oil, no matter what the source. The only way your point is valid is if all US oil came from domestic sources, and even if that were true the world’s economies are so interconnected that a major disruption that affects one region (e.g., Asia) would affect America, too.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:33 pmI say we run tests on conservatives and liberals to see, after refining, who makes the best emergency source of oil. Let’s start with Phil.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:36 pmDRJ, there is a massive difference between something that “affects America’s ability to get oil” (I agree with you Iran does this) and being “vital to American interests.”
You really suck all of the meaning out of the word “vital” if anything that affects something is “vital” to it.
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:42 pmPhil —
What’s up, no sense of humor? I simply told you that you were blissfully ignorant, and it was pretty funny. This just after you opined that conservatives were senseless murderers,
“You just want to kill some Iranians, to make you forget about that butt-whipping defeat in Iraq.”
Stop the rage. You’ll feel much better about yourself.
B. King (2d0395) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:44 pmGo chase some ambulances phil, it might pick up your spirits.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:52 pmPhil:
I agree that not everything is vital to American interests. However, it applies here because oil is the primary natural resource the US economy needs to sustain current and future growth. I think that qualifies as vital and apparently Hillary does, too.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:56 pmB King, not all conservatives. Just those who support war for any reason even remotely justifying it — like a couple bucks increase in the price of oil.
If you really think it through, what will be the long-term result of Iran clamping down on the supply of oil? It’ll be like self-imposed sanctions. It won’t help Iran economically, or politically. The only possible useful result will be to piss off the U.S. — which is so easy to do all they need to do is talk about it.
But hey, it’s an excuse to kill ’em, right?
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:58 pmBy the way, Phil, Iran has the 3rd largest proven reserves in the world (see Table 3 on p. 9 at the link). In addition, Iran can affect significantly more than that by disrupting or halting oil transport through the Straits of Hormuz.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:02 pmPhil —
There you go again! Can’t help yourself, heh? Once you get over yourself saying people who believe in the justification of war do it soley because they like to kill people then maybe some intelligent discussion can take place. Until then, I’ll enjoy your rants.
B. King (2d0395) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:06 pmDaley, the enviroweenies care more about ANWR and less oil on the coasts than they do about keeping gas and transportation cheap. Some of the more clever ones would probably say that given that those areas are off limits for large scale extraction for now (we’ll probably get to them eventually no matter what), that we will then see a “free market” solution to the problem of keeping energy reasonably inexpensive.
It will be interesting to see if the next president (whomever it is) will continue with GWB’s promotion of a hydrogen based economy or if that was just another bushie BS smokescreen. If it was real then it’s a good, proactive idea but the country is still going to need oil right now.
EdWood (2a97d2) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:11 pmYou mean that even if Iran stopped all of it’s oil supplies, we’d still have two larger oil supplies than Iran?
Explain again why Iran is “vital,” especially in light of the fact that oil production is voluntarily limited by the oil producing nations anyway?
Does Iran have a lot of oil? Sure, yeah. But is it “vital” — or just nice to have as an additional source?
I guess that depends on how you define “vital” — and why you need it to be “vital.” After all, if we invade Iran, there’s gonna be a pretty major disruption in Iran oil anyway.
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:11 pmPhil,
For our nation to succeed economically in the short- and long-term, we need oil. You realize, don’t you, that we’re not just talking about Iranian oil? Iran can also jeopardize the transportation of oil from other countries in that region. Getting cut off from the world’s primary sources of oil would disrupt America’s energy supply and that alone makes what Iran does vital to our interests.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:26 pmOnce again, there’s all kinds of stuff Iran could do that would be annoying to us, or inconvenient to us. I don’t disagree with that. But that’s Iraq’s business.
For all of our talk of respecting American sovereignty with regard to immigration, we sure are quick to throw the sovereignty of other nations to the wind when we want oil.
How much would getting cut off from middle-eastern sources of oil disrupt really America’s energy supplies? And again, how would it benefit Iran to do so?
Let’s say Iran cuts the U.S. off from its oil, and the oil from surrounding countries, for two years. What will its economy be like at that point?
After all, it’s going to have to stop selling oil altogether. It can’t just stop selling it to the U.S. — if it sells to other nations, they’ll just sell to the U.S. for a higher price if the U.S. is hurting for oil.
So where is Iran going to get any revenue? From its vast sheepherding industry?
As far as I can tell, any attempt by Iran to truly mess up the supply of oil will hurt Iran more than anyone else. Am I wrong?
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:36 pmEr, in the first sentence above I meant “that’s Iran’s business”
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:37 pmPhil,
First, it doesn’t really matter what percentage of the US oil supply comes from the Middle East because 2/3 of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. That alone means what happens in the Middle East affects US markets, not only as to price but also as to availability. Not all oil is created equal. Middle Eastern oil is much easier to extract.
Second, our need for Middle Eastern oil is actually a significant number and growing: In 1996, 8-9% of America’s oil came from the Middle East. Now it’s 17% and growing. It would cause a major economic disruption to lose almost 20% of our primary source of energy for transportation, not to mention the petrochemical industry.
However, even if there were no oil in the Middle East, it’s about more than oil now. It’s about free markets and refusing to back down from petrodollar extortion aimed at influencing the values and principles western civilization holds dear.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 5:46 pmYeah, well, “free” markets aren’t free if Iran isn’t free to be dumb enough to try to stop selling oil.
You haven’t responded to my point, which is also based on the idea of free markets. If Iran really wants to hurt the U.S., it’s going to have to do better than just try to affect the supply of oil.
Unless you can think of a way that Iran can withhold its oil from the world AND remain financially viable for any period of time, I have no idea why we’re going to war. Except that we really want to.
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/13/2007 @ 5:53 pmHillary is playing for the general election by trying to pre-empt any attacks on her as being soft on security matters. The Democrats who are totally agains the war in Iraq won’t vote for her anyway in the primaries, since they think her foreign policy outlook is close to Bush’s in the first place.
Anything that would close off oil supplies from a country with reserves the size of Iran’s would have an impact on the oil market. So for that matter would anything that closes off oil supplies from a country with oil reserves the size of Iraq. I suspect that we would never have seen 3 dollar a gallon gas at the pumps if there had been no Iraq war.
Wasn’t it Reagan who sent in the ships to keep the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf open for oil traffic?
kishnevi (f3dced) — 10/13/2007 @ 5:59 pmIran is much more capable of suffering financial deprivation than the US. First, like North Korea, the Iranian leaders know their population have minimal ability to object and they have the troops to make sure of it. Second, the US population hates deprivation and would squeal like stuck pigs at large oil price increases or even at the prospect of waiting in gas lines.
Anyway, it isn’t Iran deciding not to sell oil, Phil, it’s Iran’s ruling elite. You can’t claim Iran is really a free market, nor can you really believe that the people of Iran want their leaders to play a giant game of Monopoly at their expense.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:05 pmYou haven’t responded to my point, which is also based on the idea of free markets. If Iran really wants to hurt the U.S., it’s going to have to do better than just try to affect the supply of oil.
Really?
All right Phil, name any category of goods or services that either the raw materials, job equipment or the finished product aren’t delivered or transported. Only one will do.
Can’t, can you?
If there is a significant rise in the price of oil, that will affect the price of everything. Scarcity of a good or service causes the price to rise, while bounty causes price decreases…if 2/3 of a raw material is located in one area and cut off, this will cause the price to rise significantly.
This is Economic Free Markets 101. If you cannot grasp this, then I suggest you shouldn’t be talking about free markets.
Unless you can think of a way that Iran can withhold its oil from the world AND remain financially viable for any period of time, I have no idea why we’re going to war.
What, you think Ahmadinejad actually cares about the Iranian people? Besides those fiercely loyal to him?
Paul (d71395) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:21 pmPaul, the only thing I’ll add to your excellent comment is it would also raise prices or, if fixed, reduce availability of goods and services in a controlled market. Either way, cutting resources used in transport and petrochemical transportation is going to hurt.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:28 pmIran’s oil mess
Here’s a more detailed picture of Iran’s oil situation. Which seems to be a typical scenario of non-capitalistic countries unable to cope with capitalistic processes. Venezuela is in the same boat. Most of the elite oil people have already left Venezuela for Alberta oil sands operations. Their experience with heavy crude is much sought after.
allan (bb4b13) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:37 pmIts time for those no good politicians quit blocking drilling in the ANWR and quit listening to the eco-wackos and told GREENPEACE and SIERRA CLUB to TAKE A HIKE
krazy kagu (9b4d22) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:45 pmEd –
“Daley, the enviroweenies care more about ANWR and less oil on the coasts than they do about keeping gas and transportation cheap.”
I disagree. The enviroweenies and left don’t want to drill in ANWR or off the coasts and don’t want nuclear power, want cheap oil and gas, plus they want to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. The problem is you can’t do all of that together. Remember when everyone squealed when gasoline jumped above $3 last year. Hillary and others wanted to expropriate gas company profits. Schumer didn’t realize the state tax bite per gallon of gas was multiples of the profit margin. If the enviroweenies were really consistent they would love $5 a gallon gas to encourage conservation. Instead you’ve got morons like Al Gore using private jets to fly everywhere and using enery like there’s no tomorrow in his personal life. Oh, I forgot, he’s purchasing sham offsets from himself.
Think it through Ed.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/13/2007 @ 8:00 pmIf there is a significant rise in the price of oil, that will affect the price of everything. . . . This is Economic Free Markets 101. If you cannot grasp this, then I suggest you shouldn’t be talking about free markets.
No kidding — do you think we like oil just because we like to burn it?
I ask you why you want to go kill a bunch of people and risk American lives, and you keep saying “because they’re gonna cost us money.”
You haven’t explained why you’re so eager to go to war just because prices might increase — you can’t, because the war just sounds good to you.
There’s no real need, but the need doesn’t have to be real. After all, we’ve handled a near-doubling in gas prices since the Iraq invasion, and America continues to grow (could it be that the war is increasing America’s demand for fuel? Trucking a couple hundred soldiers all over the middle east, not to mention the contractors — nah).
Clearly, we can incorporate higher transportation prices into our economy and still make money as a nation. So why go to war just because some nation is threatening to try to raise prices?
If that’s your justification, then well, we need to go to war with every nation that affects our economy. What about China and their threats regarding U.S. debt? What about, as was aptly noted above, Venezuela?
But U.S. war-lovers have their sights fixed on Iran right now. It’s like a dog with a scent — once they smell war, you can’t get them off it. As long as they have a reason, any reason.
Phil (aa9cba) — 10/14/2007 @ 3:32 amClearly, we can incorporate higher transportation prices into our economy and still make money as a nation. So why go to war just because some nation is threatening to try to raise prices?
Phil, it ain’t gonna be no couple of bucks. Try 1000% inflation-a month kind of rises. In every product and service. That is what I mean by significant.
Such increases would completely destroy the economy of this nation, and the nation itself. If averting the nation’s destruction isn’t a reason to go to war, what is?
Don’t think it can’t happen, that it isn’t possible…because it’s happened elsewhere.
You haven’t explained why you’re so eager to go to war just because prices might increase — you can’t, because the war just sounds good to you.
I just did. Again.
Phil, you are really showing us your ignorance here. If I were you, I’d get off of this thread.
Paul (d71395) — 10/14/2007 @ 5:11 amEnviroweenies don’t want cheap oil and gas Daley, you are confusing real activists with politicians. Oh, unless you are calling “environmentalist” politicians “enviroweenies”, then I suppose I can see your point.
EdWood (d2fd8e) — 10/14/2007 @ 10:13 amEnvironmentalists that are not politicians (the ones that I know) dont like having to pay more for gas but they aren’t against it at all. They want oil to be phased out as rapidly as possible and be replaced by some cleaner alternative energy source. Some even like nuclear for some of the reasons that a commenter linked to a little while ago (was that you Daley?).
Unfortunately for Phil, some of us are old enough to remember the disruptions to our economy in the early, and again, the late 70’s when OPEC (the Arabs in the first instance, Iran second) embargoed oil shipments to the U.S.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/14/2007 @ 10:41 amIn the early 70’s reaction to the Yom Kippur War, the price of oil doubled. Go back and look at the inflation, interest rate, and growth impacts this had in 73-74-75.
In the late 70’s, Iran cut-off sales to the U.S. in reaction to Carter welcoming the deposed Shaw of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment. The price of oil doubled again.
I, for one, do not want to sit in gas-lines again (but those were more a manifistation of the Gov’ts’ micro-managing of the oil markets internally – it is significant that one of the first Executive Orders signed by Pres. Ronald Reagan on 20 Jan 81, was the de-control of the energy industry/markets; gas-lines disappeared almost at once, as the industry was now able to market its’ product in response to the market).
In removing Hussein from Kuwait, the U.S. policy has been the FREE-FLOW of oil at MARKET PRICES. This remains our policy. Any constriction of transport through the Straits of Hormuz would put tremendous pressure on the price of oil – oil from anywhere.
If you stay current on economic thought, you will find plenty of opinion that if Iran attempted to bottleneck the Straits, oil would go to at least $100, and perhaps easily to $150/bbl, or more.
Commodity price increases of this nature and speed, have drastic, negative impacts on economies.
The modern industrial state is based on petro-chemicals. Plastic, cloth, chemicals, food, mining, manufacturing: All need oil, for either transport, or as a basic feed-stock, or both.
Phil, you are an economic ignoramus of the first order. We can only hope that one of those ambulances that you chase, backs up over you.
Unfortunately for Phil, some of us are old enough to remember the disruptions to our economy in the early, and again, the late 70’s when OPEC (the Arabs in the first instance, Iran second) embargoed oil shipments to the U.S.
Absolutely right, Drew. And those disruptions are minor compared to what’s coming if Iran bottlenecks the Straits of Hormuz.
Paul (d71395) — 10/15/2007 @ 12:17 pmWhat amazes and amuses me is that some (really dumb) Americans still think the “war” in Iraq is to fight terrorists. Considering over 260 Iraqi’s are dead for every US Soldier, the terror of the war may be considerably tipped against the US.
With Exxon’s $18 BILLION quarterly profits, there is a strong smell of smoke. If you double the pump price and get oil for free using US troops and tax dollars, less shipping – profit is the difference. Big oil and auto ren the show, not Americans anymore.
Bob (56a0a8) — 10/16/2007 @ 12:44 pm#35
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 12:50 pmCount me as one of the really dumb ones….
Bob, please step away from the keyboard, and the tin-foil.
JD (a481bb) — 10/16/2007 @ 12:52 pm