Monday, April 10, 2006
The United States v. Iran: Who holds the oil card?
The basic argument is that Iran needs to maintain its flow of oil even more than the United States -- or any other interested party -- needs Iranian oil on the world market. That gives us room to apply incremental pressure against the Iranian regime, perhaps in retaliation for the sponsoring of terrorism abroad. Katzman:
[I]f the US wants to retaliate seriously against the Iranian regime, while drying up the international money that goes to Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Quaeda, and doesn't feel secure about its ability to take down Iranian air defenses... wiping out oilfield infrastructure would be a breeze.
Since Iran is completely dependent on imports for its gasoline -- imports that cost money -- its military will be effectively hamstrung even as its economy tanks.
And what's more, such a strategy would not be out of place: if we document Iranian security elements engaged in direct or proxy actions against US troops, we have our casus belli for limited countermeasures, and neither Russia nor China will able to do anything else but make predictable but polite noises in protest. China, because it will follow Russia's lead, and Russia because cannot it afford to lose one of its most effective propaganda levers for the justification of both legitimate defense and military adventurism in the Caucasus.
Without dismissing the idea -- I'm a big believer in incrementalist coercion -- one can imagine some pretty rough unintended consequences worse than $4 gasoline (which would be cheap compared to the costs of an Iranian nuke or a full-blown conventional war to prevent Iran from getting that nuke). First, if we took Iran's oil off the market it would strengthen the hand of all sorts of hideous people in the world, includinng both Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud. Both would suddenly have a lot more leverage against the United States. Second, Iran might, perversely, have more leverage. Iran knows that if its oil comes off the market, the world price will go up in the absence of a significant change in demand. Bizarrely, that would make an Iranian retaliation against, say, the Saudi oil fields that much more effective. That increased potential effectiveness would mean that their threat to do so is that much more credible. Point is, there may be no way to undermine the regime as long as it can pump and sell its oil, but destroying that capacity would put Iran in the very dangerous position of feeling that it has nothing to lose.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Apr 10, 12:00:00 AM:
"...there may be no way to undermine the regime as long as it can pump and sell its oil."
While it may not be completely undermined, an American public willing and able to make large cuts in oil use (and/or major increases in American production) would seriously cut oil prices and subsequent OPEC profits.
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 10, 08:26:00 AM:
nobrainer is right. Without an energy Manhattan Project to go ahead and stop paying lip service to energy independence, our industries are beholden to Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
How long before this actually happens?
The second point, of course, is that if we decide to start nuking Iran with our bunker busters, then the genie is back out of the bottle. Is Bush really this insane? I'm seeking some conservatives help on this...
Will Bush order the use of nukes, tactical bunker buster or whatever?
Will Rumsfeld support it?
Will Cheney?
Will military leaders?
And, as Uptown Ruler put it over at ScruHoo, "Are we really going to nuke another nation to show that nuclear weapons are bad because in the wrong hands people might use them?"
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Apr 10, 11:33:00 AM:
A couple of thoughts:
1) Nukes and bunker busters aren't the same. We shouldn't equate the two. I doubt we would nuke Iran (unless they used nukes first). I am pretty sure we would use bunker busters. Many of them. Daisy cutters too.
2) In any event, we wouldn't "use nukes" as any form of symbolism. We would use them to bring an intractable enemy to its knees, as we did intelligently with Japan, saving many more lives in the process. They are one of our staunchest allies today.
It is highly "unserious" to think of the use of nukes in any other way.
I think it's important that we be focused and cogent on the question of managing the mullahcracy, and get our terms right.
3) The notion of an energy "Manhattan Project" is pretty amusing. There are many alternatives to foreign oil, today. The problem is their cost, both monetary and political. We can invest significantly in drilling in friendly areas. But there continue to be many who oppose this for a bunch of reasons. We can invest in nuclear energy. We can burn more coal. We can burn more gas. And then there is ethanol.
The energy issue simply boils down to economics. No "magic bullet" like a "Manhattan Project" is going to alter the economics. Building a big fat super bomb, which is what the Manhattan Project was all about, wasn't driven by economics. So it's not really a useful or helpful analogy. Just like I don't expect a government funded research project to cure many diseases, I don't think they will develop an array of cheap energy alternatives.
Last point. Any President, not just the current one, has the use of nuclear weapons available to them. Democratic ones too. Even Jimmy Carter didn't volunteer to eliminate our nuclear inventory. My point is any President might be "insane" enough to use them -- as Harry Truman was, as John Kennedy was, and as GWB might be, if circumstances so dictate.
Let's ask what the Iranian President might do, shall we?
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 10, 03:30:00 PM:
Thanks for responding, CP. I know that yours is only one voice here at Tigerhawk, so let me speak only to you.
1. Nukes and bunker busters are certainly comparable in that they are both nuclear weapons. They both create explosions, radiation, and fallout. You doubt we'll use nukes, why?
2. Using nukes is inherently symbolic, and, with so many nuclear powers, doesn't it open the door for others to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes?
3. This administration and the ones before it have failed to ever seriously address energy independence. If our government would stop subsiding fossil fuels and nuclear (environmentally deadly technologies) and pour that money into renewables, we might actually cut into the fossil fuels we consume.
You would like the free market to make renewables work. So would I. But while coal, oil, and nuclear are receiving such favor from our government, it is impossible for that to happen on a large scale.
We could change it all tomorrow if our government was ready to truly do away with dependence on oil, coal, and nuclear.
Lastly, there is no justification for Bush to use nukes. None. Letting that genie out of the bottle creates more instability than Iran could ever hope to acheive.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Apr 10, 04:08:00 PM:
Screwie,
3. "Renewables" are a myth and when push come to shove are no more welcomed by environmentalists than any of the so called "environmentally deadly" options you mentioned. If you don't believe me google Virginia ridge windfarm for a look at some spirited debate, or look at the recent wind farm debate in Mass, where a proposal to build an off shore wind farm was just killed by a group led by the Kennedy's. Not even getting into the opposition against additional drilling in the US, building additional refinery capacity. Dependence on foreign oil is not something that can be eliminated by fiat.
2. Huh? I guess there is nothing preventing existing nuclear powers from a preemptive nuclear strike against us right now (other than fear of retaliation and hopefully human decency). Not sure what door you think is opened here. It would of course be a terrible think to use nukes; I don't think anyone is arguing differently. But that considering their use under different scenarios (and letting your enemy believe that you are considering their use) is not the same think as detonating a bomb, and could very well lead to an outcome that reduces the probability of anyone detonating a bomb, which is the whole point.
1. I'm not an expert on this, but I sense you and CP are miscommunicating on this point. Clearly CP is talking about conventional "bunker buster" munitions, not nuclear weapons.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Apr 10, 05:08:00 PM:
SH -
1) Supply and Demand. Energy. Abundant supply of things like oil, coal and gas make them cheap, attractive alternatives for global provision of energy. We could have cheap and efficient nuclear power, but since Three Mile Island, that has been unattractive politically. In France, a substantial majority of their energy needs are met by nuclear power, cheaply and cleanly. How do you feel about nuclear energy? How do you feel about ethanol? How do you feel about drilling in the Arctic? If you want to be serious in the debate, provide real world examples of alternatives and think thru their economics please.
What do you mean by renewables? Wind? Solar? These are not realistic alternatives to powering motor vehicles in any reasonable timeframe or capacity. But renewable is a nice coded green word. Is that what you like, nice words?
2) Using nukes is not symbolic. It is highly farookin' destructive. Flowery words like "Israel should be wiped off the map"...that's symbolic. The release of an atomic weapon is anything but symbolic. If you use a nuke, you are not coding a secret message. You are trying to crush your enemy, their psyche, their capacity to hurt you and so forth. I don't know what has your symbols flashing. Perhaps you and Eminem were talking about Price or something.
We used non nuclear bunker busters in Afghanistan. It's just a big fat traditional bomb. I suppose we could load it up with nukes too.
Like I wrote, though perhaps you chose to ignore it or just missed it, we are really unlikely to use nukes preemptively against Iran. There's no point to doing it, so I doubt we would. But why publically remove the option? That's just silly. To buy the Great Satan goodwill with The Mullahs? You're joking right?
I think you must be reading the New Yorker and their Seymour Hersh's stupid article on the fact that -- he alleges -- a bunch of Army-types want the CINC to take nukes off the table on Iran, and the CINC won't. And Hersh further alleges that these Army types will resign over it.
I wouldn't hold your breath for the resignations Screwy. I think Hersh is being played like a drum (again). I guess this is our way of responding to Ahmadinejad's public nuttiness. We find a journalist rube who will write down how crazy this Bush guy is.
I am reminded of the initial scene from War Games where the actor blinks at the possibility of pushing the button and his colleague aims a gun at him. Possible in movies and Seymour Hersh's world, I guess, but not likely at the top planning echelons of the American Military.
Hersh is a JOKE.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Apr 10, 05:09:00 PM:
Ho Screwy - one more question. By your standards, did Truman have justification to use nukes?
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 10, 05:10:00 PM:
Cvillain,
1. You're probably right. I'm talking about bunker busting nukes.
2. The nuclear genie is only an effective deterrent as long as it remains a last option.
3. There will always be opposition to anything. Renewables are not a myth. I recommend the documentary "Kilowatt Ours" for more information on how conservation and use of renewables can eliminate our fossil fuel dependence. In my town of Asheville, NC there is a lot of housing going up with 'green' energy. It saves money in the long term and is a move in the right direction towards preserving our environment, our health, and our independence.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 10, 05:11:00 PM:
Oh and one more thing. Disagreeing with a journalist doesn't mean he's wrong.
He sure nailed that whole Abu Ghraib thing...
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Apr 10, 06:04:00 PM:
Actually - the "Abu Ghraib" thing - a tempest in the prison management teapot if you've spent much time in a US maximum security prison -- was self-investigated by the Military and self-reported. The lurid photographs were leaked by antiwar, antimilitary folks hell bent on making the military and the US look bad. This isn't to condone Abu Ghraib, merely to put journalisms contribution to the situation in perspective. They did nothing to discover or ameliorate the circumstances. Zippo.
I would not make Hersh out to be a hero on Abu Ghraib. That's just silly.
Now how about Truman and nukes Screwy...dodging?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 10, 08:27:00 PM:
CP and Screwy -
At the risk of some Clintonian triangulation between the two of you (which will earn me the ire of both, no doubt), may I observe that Truman left two legacies concerning the use of nukes. First, he quite famously is the only chief executive to have given the order to deploy nuclear weapons. Second, he also was the first chief executive to decide that nuclear weapons were not just a powerful munition, but so qualitatively different that the deployment of them was not a purely military decision. The global tradition today of requiring stringent command and control with regard to nuclear weapons was the invention of Harry Truman, and the world might have been quite different if he had taken the point of view that, say, their use was up to Douglas MacArthur in his best judgment. It is strange to think of it, but at the time that was a surprising insight, and perhaps Harry Truman's most important contribution as President.
So, yes, nuclear weapons are "different," and that mystique has probably helped keep the peace between great powers over the last sixty years. Furthermore, I do think it would be constructive for President Bush to make very clear that Harry Truman's insight remains American policy even today. Reinforcement cannot hurt, if for no reason that it may remind the mullahs to put in appropriate internal controls of their own, should they get a bomb.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 10, 09:42:00 PM:
CardinalPark,
You really like calling names. Here we were having a nice conversation, and then you turn to name-calling. I guess you don't have any problem with letting genies out of bottles...
The price of a gallon of diesel in my town right now - $2.80.
The price of a gallon of biodiesel in my town right now - $2.60.
Ideally we will draw energy from a variety of sources. Depending on one or two is unsustainable. Renewable, a word in the dictionary, is not code, CardinalPark. Maybe it's code for "Communist Who Wants to Steal Your Daughter" in crazyashell right wing world, but to me it's just a word I use to describe energies that keep on giving.
Truman didn't need to drop the bombs. The argument that he saved more lives than he destroyed is an interesting and unknowable point of view. As soon as George W. Bush proves that his crystal ball has been repaired, he can start talking about how a little war here and a little war there will prevent an enormomassive war that will Steal Your Daughters Faster Than the Renewable Communists.
Do you favor using nukes in Iran? Why or why not?
Go read Chain of Command then have your opinion about Sy Hersh.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 11, 08:29:00 AM:
Screwy -- what name did I call you?
To the extent that "biofuel" costs less, and works equally well in cars, it will displace oil. What is "biofuel?" Is it ethanol? What is it?
And thanks for answering the question re: your views on Truman's decision to drop the bomb. It confirms your tenacious willingness to deal gently with fanatical enemies who attack us at the expense ("unknowable", of course) of our people. Offensive really Screwy. Out there.
Maybe you are as you describe yourself.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Apr 11, 12:48:00 PM:
Google biofuels, you'll learn tons. Imagine if government moved subsidies now going to oil over to biofuels... free market indeed.
"tenacious willingness to deal gently with fanatical enemies" - Are you talking about the Japanese civilians we massacred with the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did they really have it coming? Evil Japs - they should have overthrown the govt. or moved to Jersey if they didn't want to get obliterated.
My tenacious willingness, CardinalPark, is to respect humanity. I'm all for getting the bad guys, but I'm not for killing everyone else. I know, I know, I'm completely fucking insane for thinking that way.
By cakreiz, at
Tue Apr 11, 03:56:00 PM:
Screwy: I'm really not interested in the thread except for your statement that Truman didn't need to use the bomb. I guess that was back in the good old days when the US tried to win wars instead of reaching stalements. I'd like to hear the alternatives. A land invasion? Nonnuclear firebombing of cities? Negotiation? Simply leave?
