In a recent interview on Al Jazeera television Iran's Oil Minister Rostam Qaesemi, commenting on Iran's Oil exports, brazenly threatened, "In case we are urged to and feel it necessary, we will use it as a political tool." This amidst his comments that currently Iran will seek a "fair price", whatever that means, at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' next meeting on December 14.
As we know, OPEC is always seeking a "fair price".
But the burnishing aside, the threat made is clear. Iran stands ready to withhold oil exports as a matter of policy if it feels it would be advantageous to its political goals and has now clearly put that option on the table. It has been made under the assumption that the any disruption in Iran's oil exports would, according to Rostam Qaesemi, cause severe problems for the global crude market.
Now that Iran has unsheathed that threat, a riposte is called for by those threatened by its oil policies and other elements of its renegade foreign policy and nuclear undertakings.
Rostam Qaesemi's assessment of the crippling potential of withholding Iranian oil is not only wrong but should be countered with unified policy of embargoing all shipments of Iranian oil, much as European countries have initiated against Syria, consumers of 90 percent of its exports.
As discussed previously in my posts, Iran exports some 2.4 million barrels of oil daily, a quantity of oil that could readily be covered by bringing into production the idle capacity of the Gulf Cooperation Council comprising Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Saudi Arabia currently has spare capacity of some 4 million barrels/day sitting idle. To counter Iran's threat of using the oil weapon, it would require the cooperation of these national entities with the clear understanding that Iran's export capacity would be replaced with no upside impact on oil prices.
Just recently, with an eye on a belligerent Iran, the Obama Administration announced plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf, seeking to expand military ties with the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council attempting to foster a new "security structure". The United States is already burning in excess of $100 million a day keeping a naval task force in the Gulf.
Bringing pressure or persuasion to end purchases of Iran's oil, in the same spirit as Europe's embargo, could play a major role in diminishing the cash flow to the Iranian mullahs for whom oil revenues are key to their authoritarian hegemony over their fellow citizens. Below please find a recompilation of ranked Iranian oil destinations (thousand bbls/day) in 2005 (not included is an important Iranian oil buyer, India) :
Japan 685,000
China 284,000
South Korea 195,000
Italy 193,000
France 142,000
Netherlands 139,000
Turkey 138,000
South Africa 134,000
Taiwan 125,000
All this while North America is on the precipice of energy independence given the extensive increases in natural gas reserves and new developments toward shale oil and tar sands production. The United States alone, as reported in the Financial Times:
Many analysts expect that in the coming decade the US will leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's largest producer of liquid hydrocarbons, counting both crude oil and lighter gas liquids such as propane and ethane. The optimism reflects the increasing flow of "tight oil" and gas from shale- rock formations holding reserves unlocked through new extraction technologies.
All this raises the existential question: why should the United States bear the burden of protecting or even involving itself with the far off Gulf Cooperation Council if they are not prepared to assume the weight of their responsibilities? Cooperation that would prove instrumental in a successful, yet non bellicose, confrontation with Iran.
Follow Raymond J. Learsy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondLearsy
Brian Dooley: U.S. Giving Undue Deference to Bassiouni Commission Report
Don Kraus: Syria: Burning Down the House
Tit for tat. If we can't handle it, we should bow out gracefully. This is their backyard, not ours. And if we need oil that badly, we can pump it out of our own territory. I for one would like to see someone call us out for our unprecedented arrogance.
To be honest, I am still reeling from the shock of reading colonial-era narratives in 2011, when the Middle East is so obviously trying to dismantle those remaining institutions and purge itself of their puppet dictators. None of our business. And if we say otherwise, then we have lied for decades about those "freedom, democracy and independence" narratives.
Good Lord! Just how far are we going to go to demonize a country which maintains its sovereignty and refuses to bow to Israeli threats and American hegemony?
...The reason for the sanction is that Iran is suspected of making a bomb...It should be well known that the USA has stolen a computer which they say has all telling evidence of this..If you have been following this it seems it is all a pack of lies...no computer, and no corroboration of findings when asked for by IAEA making the USA non compliance...just spreading fear, backing Iran into the corner while Israel makes REAL BOMBS and prepares for another journey into the unknown.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20091105.htm
Spare me your outrage.
Maintaining a fleet in the Gulf = 100 million a day, which could be used to create jobs. A losers' cruise.
There is no good reason why we can't have then in the USA too.
But they can't use the oil weapon. That would be "unfair"
What the? Unsheathed it? He simply mentions it exists, as if people didn't know, and specifies that in present circumstances it is not necessary or planned to use it. Saying that this is "unsheathing the threat" is like saying the US threatens nuclear annihilation - "unsheathing the threat" - every time someone in government mentions it possesses nuclear weapons. That is, every thirty seconds or so.
One more neo pushing for a war for which he will never volunteer.