Ready for $60-a-Barrel Oil?

[adios]

The logic here is a bit of stretch perhaps but I have no doubt that Iran would like to see a theocracy in Iraq and $60 a barrel for crude. Enjoy the day, I'll check back tonight.

Ready for $60-a-Barrel Oil? (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200406220842.asp)

Ready for $60-a-Barrel Oil?
The Iranian election strategy at work.



So the Iranians seized some British "warships" yesterday, and arrested eight British naval officers. That's what the Iranians announced in the morning, and that's all we've heard. The chatterers were agog. Why would the Iranians do such a crazy thing? Do they really want war (If that isn't a good old-fashioned causus belli, what is?)? Etc.




Yes, they're crazy, no doubt. But they're not stupid. And if an Iranian action seems stupid, you're probably misinterpreting it. There's a perfectly straightforward explanation for the whole episode: The Brits were laying down a network of sensors to detect the movement of ships toward major Iraqi oil terminals. The Iranians considered that a bit of a threat. So they attacked.

And why, you might ask, did the Iranians feel threatened?

Because they were planning to attack (or have their surrogates attack) the oil terminals, silly.

And why attack the oil terminals?

Because they want to defeat President Bush in November, and they figure if they can get the price of oil up to around $60 a barrel, he'll lose to Kerry.

Not to mention a considerable side benefit: At $60 a barrel, they can buy whatever they may be lacking to get their atomic bombs up and running.

It's not that hard to understand the mullahs once you learn to think as they do, and understand their hopes and fears.

What do they hope? That Bush will lose; that the Coalition will collapse; that they can dominate Iraq and create an Islamic republic in the Iranian image. That will expand their power in the region, totally demoralize the internal democratic opposition, and drive America from the Middle East, thereby permitting them to complete their nuclear-weapons program at their leisure. A dream come true.

What do they fear? Above all, their own people. (And a free, relatively stable Iraq would inspire the Iranian people to demand the same freedom for themselves, meaning the end of the mullahcracy). An aggressive American policy in support of democratic revolution in Iran, for the same reason. A collapse in oil prices. The reelection of George W. Bush.

So you see at once the bases of Iranian policy: Drive oil prices up and the Americans out of Iraq, whatever the cost. The Brits were in the way, blocking easy access for saboteurs to the Iraqi oil facilities. Ergo the "crazy" action. Which turns out to be not so crazy at all.

And one other thing: The Iranians figure they've got the Brits under control, because the Brits have lots of contracts with them. Thus far, the Brits have behaved like good little boys, forestalling any effective steps to get in the way of the nuclear program, and lobbying the Bush administration to be "reasonable" and "patient." You can be sure that the British foreign office has every confidence that no harm will come to their officers, and that the incident will be resolved quickly and even amiably.

Not crazy at all. In fact, they're winning.

If anybody cares, it's a good bet that Iranian-sponsored hit squads will be going after lots of oil terminals and refineries in the next couple of months.

But it's hard to find anyone who cares. I guess we can afford $60 a barrel, and I suppose Foggy Bottom and the CIA will be able to manage a nuclear Iran. Right?

[ThaSaltCracka]

quite a stretch. I would think an attack by Iran or one of its "hit-squads" on Iraqi oil installations would probably be all the admin would need for attacking Iran. I don't think Iran wants that, because the people in Iran want reform probably more so then the admin.

[jcx]

This acticle suffers from severely flawed logic. Iran and their OPEC friends do not want sustained $60/barrel oil. The American consumer will pay $2/gal for gas, $3 or $4 per gallon would destroy the SUV and truck market, sending car buyers scurrying to fuel efficient models, thus dropping the demand for oil. At that price the auto manufacturers would have a gigantic incentive to speed up research on hydrogen fuel cell technology. Finally, Saudi Arabia can pump far more oil per day than they presently do and would undoubtedly pick up the slack.

And while I do not often agree with the Salt Cracka, he has made a good point. The majority of Iranians wish to be rid of the mullahs and desire a secular government. The current regime has resorted to importing thugs from elsewhere in the region to consolidate power and enforce Islamic law, as they no longer fully trust their own military. They do not wish to give the US or UK a reason to invade before they complete work on the one thing that will ensure they stay in power (Nuclear weapons). They will likely parade the hostages on TV for awhile they will be released quietly.

[cardcounter0]

No, the Iranians couldn't have seized any British boats. George Bush's wonderful plan of invading Iraq threw fear into the hearts of the entire Muslim world. Putting a democracy in place in Iraq showed them all a shining example of the superiority of the Western system. Iran will merely surrender and fall, much the same way Reagan forced the Evil Empire to crumble by saying "Tear down that wall!" The Iranians would never grab any ships now that we have shown our willingness to fight and stay the course in Iraq ... ooppps, uh, nevermind.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[whiskeytown]

another flaw in the logic - no president has ever been removed during an election that fell during wartime... - some of them QUIT (i.e. - Johnson) - but anytime we're at war, even if we're losing, the incumbant gets to keep the job 4 more yrs...

highly doubtful they'd replace bush with Kerry.

RB

[ThaSaltCracka]

why didn't you put war in ""?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Another thing to think about, Kerry hasn't shown that he would do things much differently in the "war" on terrorism, other than his pledge to increase international involvement(...whatever). So regardless of who wins the election, our foreign policy is not going to change that much.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know about this but it wouldn't be too surprising.

It's getting to be about that time...to get rid of the mad mullahs. If Bush is reelected the chances are at least 50% IMO that we will be in Iran within the next year or two.

Actually, it would be nice if he could find a way to sequentially take out the governments of Iran and North Korea after Iraq settles down a bit and he gets reelected.

The Iraqis are now getting pissed at the insurgents as they see the country being handed back to them shortly. They are also pissed at al-Sadr and are calling for him to face justice.

The insurgents in Iraq have shown that they can cause trouble but they can't mount a sustained major offensive. Iraq will be mostly pacified, mainly because the regular Iraqis want it that way. Good chance that will happen before November so Bush gets a boost. Then after the election and improvements in Iraq it will be time to throw out the mullahs and then maybe Kim Jong-il.

The average Iranian is fairly young and progressive and wants freedom not mullahcracy, but they need a bit of help as all the strength is held by the thuggish mullahs. Bush may go down in history as the man who changed the face of the Middle East.

[jokerswild]

Not one of your statements holds congruence to reality.
The Reich was conquered in 1945, MMMMMMMM.

[cardcounter0]

Don't let reality get in the way of MMMMMMMMs and Bush's plans for world domination.

[MMMMMM]

You guys are so off base it's scary.

jokerswild confuses defeating fascist regimes, with fascism itself.

cardcounter0 fears a strong America more than dictators and lunatics with nukes.

The stronger America is, the more stable the world is, and the more protection liberty and free enterpise enjoy. The more protectiun liberty and free enterprise have, the higher the average standard of living is, and the more progress takes place. No wonder dictators, communists, leftists, Islamists and various assorted lunatics all cringe at the idea of a strong America. It is simply a threat to their misguided ideals of greater and greater government controls over everyone and everything.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
The more protectiun liberty and free enterprise have, the higher the average standard of living is, and the more progress takes place.

[/ QUOTE ]

To a lot of conservatives like me who aren't going to vote in this election but usually do, this statement seems abusrd. With the Patriot Act, the wardrobe malfuction backlash, legitmization of torture without any due process, and countless other crackdowns on our own freedoms in the name of security; how can you say that the Bush Administration is more supportive of freedom than the other guys?

[ QUOTE ]
It is simply a threat to their misguided ideals of greater and greater government controls over everyone and everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this not what the Bush administration is doing to our society?

[jokerswild]

I recognize a fascist when I see one.You qualify. If the Bush imperialistic push into Iraqi oil appears to be about liberty to you, then you are just a"Heil Bush" Nazi.

Your idea of freedom is anyone that agrees with your position is good. Anyone that believes that might does not make right deserves to be liquadated. Your soultion for Iran sounds very familiar. The MMMMMMM final solution.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The more protectiun liberty and free enterprise have, the higher the average standard of living is, and the more progress takes place

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the greatest times of progress if your talking inventing and improving things is during war. I mean proper war not just this phoney crap we have at the moment.

[MMMMMM]

M: "The more protection liberty and free enterprise have, the higher the average standard of living is, and the more progress takes place."


BadBoyBenny: "To a lot of conservatives like me who aren't going to vote in this election but usually do, this statement seems abusrd. With the Patriot Act, the wardrobe malfuction backlash, legitmization of torture without any due process, and countless other crackdowns on our own freedoms in the name of security; how can you say that the Bush Administration is more supportive of freedom than the other guys?"

I'm not saying that at all; what I'm trying to say is that a strong USA security umbrella helps protect other free nations so they can engage in free trade, free enterprise and democracy. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Europe and the Pacific Rim have long operated freely and successfully, in significant part due to the security umbrella a strong America provided. I'm comparing non-free countries to free countries, for the most part. Except in China's case to some extent, there is a strong correlation between being a democratic nation and being a prosperous nation with a diverse and growing economy. If ceetain countries can move from a totalitarian model to a democratic model, they are much more likely to eventually enjoy true prosperity and growth.

As for your other questions, again I was not addressing the issue of Bush vis-a-vis Kerry or the Democrats, but rather a strong America versus assorted totalitarian states, theocracies, etc. around the globe.

[MMMMMM]

Apparently, jokerswild, you prefer to see dictators butchering and jailing political dissidents. Is that your idea of a legitimate model for government? Do you think that is somehow OK for them because it is "theirs" and not "ours"?

A band of thugs hold power in some country, executing everyone they see as political threats. You have the nerve to say WE are wrong to condemn that, because it is not "our way"??? What an IDIOTIC and non-compassionate argument.

Any form of totalitarianism is bad. All I am saying is let's be open to getting rid of the tyrants and their tyrannical systems--at least when the opportunity presents itself and especially when there are pressing reasons to do so.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Iran wants that, because the people in Iran want reform probably more so then the admin.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people aren't in control in Iran though. The extremist Mullahs are.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This acticle suffers from severely flawed logic. Iran and their OPEC friends do not want sustained $60/barrel oil. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points.

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of Iranians wish to be rid of the mullahs and desire a secular government.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we've been told and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
The current regime has resorted to importing thugs from elsewhere in the region to consolidate power and enforce Islamic law, as they no longer fully trust their own military....

[/ QUOTE ]

Again good points, however, I don't think it's a stretch at all to believe that the Iranian government is supporting the likes of al Qaeda and such.

[nicky g]

"Except in China's case to some extent, there is a strong correlation between being a democratic nation and being a prosperous nation with a diverse and growing economy."

And in Russia's; although to call Russia a democracy is perhaps inaccurate and in general I agree with you. But it has to be managed right.

[nicky g]

"I don't think it's a stretch at all to believe that the Iranian government is supporting the likes of al Qaeda and such. "

I would say it's a very big stretch. Iran was officially at war with the Taliban prior to the Afghan war. Al Qaeda is thought to be behind dozens of extremly bloody recent attacks on Shias in Iraq and Pakistan; their Wahabbist allies in Saudi Arabia have been repressing Shias for years. Al Qaeda regards Shi'ism as the worst sort of heresy so to imagine for it and an ultra-Shia regime are in league with each other verges on the incredible.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say it's a very big stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a few links out of many. I suppose that if al Qaeda operatives in Iraq didn't get assistance from Iran they got assitance from another neighboring country and/or they were in Iraq from the gitgo.
Iran admits holding al Qaeda operatives (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/22/alqaeda.iran/)

Just happened to be there? Think they'll give them up? I don't.

Al Qaeda quietly slipping into Iran, Pakistan (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0114/p1s2-wosc.html)

Is it possible?

U.S. says Iran harbors al Qaeda 'associate' (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030610-125659-6237r.htm)

More lies right?

Iran and al-Qaeda: Odd bedfellows (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ17Ak02.html)

I think a balanced article on the topic.

Key Al Qaeda role for bin Laden son (http://www.msnbc.com/news/979918.asp?cp1=1)

Washington Post report

[nicky g]

"Iran admits holding al Qaeda operatives

Just happened to be there? Think they'll give them up? I don't. "

As the article says, it depends on what they mean by in custody. In general though it means locked up, in jail. Why should they give them up? Presumably they have committed offences in Iran, and refusing to hand over people to a country you have distinctly forsty relations with (ie the US) isn't a sign of supporting those people. I doubt any kind of formal extradition request has been made since then; not to mentionthat these kind of claims seem to have been quitely dropped since then (the article is over a year old).

"Al Qaeda quietly slipping into Iran, Pakistan

Is it possible? "

Of course it's possible. Iran shares a 600 mile mountainous border with Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugees crossed it during and after the Afghan war; it wouldn't be difficult for a few hundred al Qa'ida fighters to slip in with them. Note that they were also slipping into Pakistan, a US ally.

"U.S. says Iran harbors al Qaeda 'associate'

More lies right? "

A. this is Zarqawi, who we are now being confidently told is in every Fallujan house the coalition destroys. B. he is the man largely held responsible for killing over 100 Shia Muslims at the Ashura festival - not exactly something Iran is likely to endorse.


"Iran and al-Qaeda: Odd bedfellows

I think a balanced article on the topic. "

Intersting article, thank. I think it does a lot to cast doubt on the Washington Post report.

Seriously Tom, i know you must be sick of hearing the same "these people are natural enemies and would never cooperate" argument from me about various factions, but al-Qaeda is fanatically anti-Shia and is attacking Shia targets across Iraq, including pilgrimage sites that hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been flocking to. I really don;t see how it could make any sense for them to be in bed with each other. That's not to say it's impossible for Iran to be supporting any Iraqi militias or fighers; but surely not lunatic Wahabbi ones. Even Hamas and (Iranian-baced) Hezbollah have publically condemned AQ actions in Iraq; they have a completely different agenda from Arab nationalists, Palestinian nationalists, Shia leaders and even most Islamists.

[adios]

I sincerely appreciate and respect your commentary and perspective. You make excellent points and I will give them some serious consideration at this juncture. I definitely need to look at this from a different perspective. Thanks for your thoughts.