It's All About The Oil Stupid

Corbis Images

Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions. As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country's position as the world's fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.
[...]
"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.

In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a "scientific" conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth".
[...]
Iran had a "cheap means" of achieving its nuclear "rights", Mr Ahmadinejad said, adding: "You [the west] need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation."
[...]
Although Britain has ruled out military moves against Iran, two American senators yesterday said the US might undertake a strike of "last resort" to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The Republican John McCain told CBS: "Everything else has to be exhausted, but to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option would be crazy." Democrat Evan Bayh urged diplomacy, but said there were elements of Iran's nuclear programme which, if attacked, "would dramatically delay its development".

White House spokesman David Almacy said: "The international community is determined not to let Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How we address that regime's continued non-compliance will be decided in the days and weeks ahead."

The UN security council issue will be the centrepiece of today's meeting, when EU and US officials will attempt to persuade their Russian and Chinese counterparts of the need for a referral, which could lead to economic sanctions.

As I have said before, it is all about the oil. I just hope the West can for once think about our own security before they decide to sell us out for the price of a barrell. Stephen Green agrees:

"Somebody needs to tell Tehran something, and tell it to them straight. We'll pay more for oil if we have to - we can, in a pinch, afford it. What we can't buy back is the millions of lives Iran promises to snuff out if it gets nuclear weapons."

Unfortunately, "The  joker in the deck is the reaction of China and Russia - China is getting ever more aggressive in its anti-Americanism, while a dying Russia still seeks to play on the world stage as a Great Power and, unfortunately, Putin seems to think that being a Great Power requires Russian opposition to American policy. Brace yourselves, it could be a bumpy ride later this year."

If Asia's Oil supplies were to be interrupted and its economy in chaos, that would matter to you personally. And I am not referring to mildly inconvenient Made-in-China supply shortages at your local Walmart (10% of all US imports from China is to Walmart), but I am talking about the global interdependencies of all economies, particularly China and Japan, as they are holding 50% of the US Treasury debt. Have that debt sold off in a hurry and you and I are in deep s....

And if you allow the Islamofascists to gain power in the Middle East, if you allow them to establish their Taliban 'heaven', you'd hand the masterminds of 9/11 the fattest checkbook imaginable. Jackpot. But we'd be in a lose-lose situation. Taliban & Co wisely 'invest' billions of Oil money to fight the Infidels -- big loss; Taliban & Co decide that the Infidel Dogs need to collapse under their own greed, hence no more Oil for Asia -- even bigger loss.

So we come back to the same old story, you have heard on this blog again and again and again. Zero tolerance, no sanctions, strike hard and fast, and let The Thug-In-Chief know we mean business, and not oil business but protecting our freedom. It is not what he expects, he has played the oil card very early on.

We know that even Japan has a $3bn deal with Iran. We certainly can't count on most of Asia, Russia has agendas of it's own as their oil supplies are comming from their Muslim dominated regions, although outwardly they seem to be toeing the hard line. Venezuelan President Chavez is getting pally with The Thug-In-Chief, and that relationship could cost us the 15% oil supply that we get from that region, and dearly need.

Technically, Europe and America could survive, albeit with difficulty now that Chavez may be the wild card. We don't need the oil as much as Asia does: if Middle East oil exports were completely cut-off in 2010 for some disastrous reason, the West would have to replace 3-4% of its total energy requirement. In contrast, Asia would need to replace upwards of 28% of its total energy requirement; 3-4% you can manage, but 28% you can not replace in a hurry...). And their economic shock would spread very quickly to affect us all.

From Jeff Goldstein:

"Unfortunately—fearing a dramatic spike in oil prices, France is already relenting on sanctions (as is Germany), and sadly, Condi Rice is making similar conciliatory overtures to tone down the confrontational rhetoric (though this could be part of gambit to keep Tehran guessing, as the lefty agitprop organ Think Progress inadvertantly notes while taking a predictable shot at the competing, bloodthirsty rhetoric Cheney)—but the truth is, the world doesn’t “need the Iranian nation,” as Ahmadinejad seems to think (for instance, I’m perfectly happy with knock-off Persian rugs from Pakistan, and I stuff my own grapeleaves, thank you very much), so much as it needs a rationale actor in the middle east who will not spend generations trying to acquire the means to commit religiously sanctioned genocide."

Whilst in Israel, IAF pilots have completed their mission training and fighter jets have been prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran, the British Sunday Times reported.

The article reported that "the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron" had been equipped with weapons that will be tested in combat for the first time, and that two missile submarines were on standby: one in the Persian Gulf and the second in Haifa Bay.

The gist of a number of articles, news items and “strategic analyses” published in the Western media over the past two weeks has been that The United States has decided to invade Iran and change its regime. The invasion will start on March 19 with bombing raids against “sensitive targets” in Iran by the US Air Force operating from Turkey, the Mussandam Peninsula, and the island of Massirah.

Whether this is true, partly or simply impossible to believe, if push comes to shove, we will be either helping Israel openly to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or behind closed doors, but help them we will. The rest of course, is all about the oil stupid!

And what is it going to take for us to get it, a mushroom cloud over Miami?

Because the danger of Iranian nukes is not just the technology. France has had atom bombs since Charles De Gaulle, but nobody is worried about a French attack on Berlin or New York. Such an attack would be suicidal, and France does not have a suicidal government.  No, the real fear is that Tehran’s fanatical leaders are quite prepared to use nukes, once they get them. No one has used nuclear weapons in the last fifty years, ever since the “balance of nuclear terror” became a fact of life.

Technology is neutral. How nations use technology is crucial.

Today there are only two regimes in the world that might use nuclear weapons in a mass-suicidal fashion. They are led by people who talk madly, and act as if they mean it. We don’t know if and when they might encounter a personal or political crisis that would make them push that button as a last, desperate act.

Previously on ATB:

The Rules Of Engagement,
Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again,
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics,
Has Israel Persuaded Washington?,
Iran Prepares For Nuclear Jihad,
Europe Thy Name Is Cowardice,
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part I,
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part II,
Extraction Of The Stone Of Iranian Madness,

Comments

[MarcH]

The most recent edition of the Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report by George Friedman (01/17/06) (http://www.stratfor.com/) reminded me of one additional point related to my argument in comment #3 above. There is a big distinction between the capability to manufacture a nuclear device and the capability to manufacture a nuclear warhead and delivery system. Obviously the latter is many times more complicated than the former. It is therefore more likely that the Iranians will initially only have access to a nuclear device, rather than a missile delivered warhead. A device would be larger and more fragile than a missile warhead and require a gentler form of transport to the target, for example in a cargo container carried by a truck, ship and/or train.

In my opinion, this distinction between nuclear device and nuclear warhead makes it more likely that, if the Iranians do intend to actually use their nuclear capability, they will use it in the manner I discussed in comment #3 above.

Further addition to comment #3: Of course it’s Benedict XVI not XV. Next time I’ll just call him Pope Benedict.

[MarcH]

I’m more than a day late and a dollar short to this thread. In any case, I tip my hat to Alexandra. Together with “Rules of Engagement” and “The Unexploded Bomb of Global Politics” this post nicely summarizes the major Geo-political/Theo-political issue of the moment (and the next generation). These posts are a current affairs “hat-trick.”
I do have one small contribution to make to the discussion. I don’t think that one can say with any certainty that Israel would be the first target of an Iranian WMD (“opening strike to world domination”). I think it’s at least as likely that the U.S. would be the first target. I offer three points to support my argument.
First, an attack on Israel might be seen as counter-productive to the Iranian goal of opening the way to a global caliphate. While they might succeed in destroying Israel with a missile strike, they would likely face massive retaliation as well as the risk that the West might really take the Iranian/Radical Islamist threat seriously and deal appropriately. While the world does not care too much for live Jews, they do like to make memorials to dead Jews and this would be an effective Western rallying point (I can see the solemn speeches by Chirac, etc.)
Second, if one assumes that a covert, un-attributed Iranian strike is the most likely mode of attack (to decrease the possibility of retaliation), the U.S. is probably a much more vulnerable target. I’ve read that Israel inspects at least 30% of incoming cargo. Although the occasional suicide bomber does get through, their border security is obviously very tight. Contrast Israeli border security with the U.S. I’ve read that the U.S inspects about 3% of incoming cargo. A 2004 GAO report (see end of article) suggests that U.S. cargo security is still far short of sufficient.
Finally, the Iranians might reason that a strike at the U.S. is the only way to make a decisive move to eliminate the main military and cultural obstacle to a global caliphate. The explosion of even a single covert, un-attributed nuclear bomb in a U.S. city (perhaps close to a U.S. election, M.O. of Madrid) might generate U.S. disenchantment with a “Neocon” policy of meddling in foreign affairs and a desire to bring the troops home and focus on homeland defense. This would, of course, give the Radical Islamists a free hand over the "great globe itself".

OT – Alexandra, I hope you are going to do a review/plug for Benedict XV’s article in this month’s First Things.

[Paul of York]

While I encourage the halting of Iran's nuclear weapon program, I can't help but feeling the Genie truly is out of the bottle and that nation after nation will develop nuclear weapon capability. Some for the pure joy of tweaking our nose. Insisting we are not the arbiter of a nations sovereignty; I think those who would harm us are believing us weak enough to do so.
I don't know the intricacies of the world economy and in the end that will probably rule. There are enough people who hate us simply because we are such a perceived teller of how it will be because we said so. I know that is not true. I also know our back is exposed to our own home-grown appeasers and they hold great sway. I also wonder how long brave men and women will step forward in such an atmosphere.
Do I make any sense?

[North by Northwest]

Wayne Madsen is at it again, so please take it with a truckload of salt. Whilst Madsen's anti-Bush vitriol is often unparalleled, I was much more struck by how many nuclear sites there are, what a nuclear buzz is actually happening in Iran at the moment.

01-03-2006 - Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on Iranian nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear weapons, is in the final stages of preparation. Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak.

Wow! And all of this is of course just for producing electricity. Who in their right mind can believe that and cheerfully demand more proof. But, Alexandra, you certainly paint a bleak picture. As much as I wish Madsen was right, I don't believe we have the political will; it seems that Ahmadinejad will win the day and get his nukes....