Senator McCain, President Bush, and some of their oil industry friends are urging Americans to support overturning a 26-year ban on offshore drilling as a way to bring down gas prices. Of course, it's snake oil designed for what the Joe Lieberman campaign affectionately called "low information voters."
As Dean Baker and Nichole Szembrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in a June 2008 paper ,
the Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects that Senator McCain's proposal would have no impact in the near-term since it will be close to a decade before the first oil can be extracted from the currently protected offshore areas. The EIA projects that production will reach 200,000 barrels a day (0.2 percent of projected world production) at peak production in close to twenty years. It describes this amount as too small to have any significant effect on oil prices.
In contrast, if the United States had continued raising auto fuel efficiency standards annually between 1985-2005 by a quarter of the amount it raised them annually from 1980-1985 -- instead of leaving them virtually unchanged -- the result would have roughly been the equivalent of 3.3 million barrels of oil per day in new production in 2008 -- 16 times the impact of McCain's Offshore Drilling [MOD], CEPR reports.
What about the impact of lifting sanctions on Iran?
"Sanctions are pushing up the cost of oil," notes Juan Cole in a recent piece on Salon.
I asked Cole what his estimate of the scale of this effect was. If Iran could have expanded production of oil from 4 million barrels a day in the late 1990s to 6 million barrels a day today, that would be an extra 2 million barrels a day, i.e. 88 million barrels a day globally instead of 86, Cole says.
I asked Dean Baker of CEPR what could be the impact of lifting sanctions on Iran, and he wrote:
"Suppose they open up to foreign investment and production goes up 1-2 million barrels a day after a few years...It's 5 to 10 times McCain's offshore drilling."
So, summarizing in a table, using MOD ["McCain's Offshore Drilling"] as our "numeraire," as the economists say, we have the following:
Modest Conservation: 16 MOD
Lift Sanctions on Iran: 5-10 MOD
McCain's Offshore Drilling: 1 MOD
Now, some would surely argue that simply lifting sanctions on Iran is not politically feasible, because there is currently a "Washington Consensus" for sanctions on Iran supported by groups like AIPAC, linked to its nuclear program, relations with Iraq, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.
Let's concede for the sake of discussion that that is true. What about the lifting of sanctions in the context of a real, negotiated deal with Iran? Would such a deal be more likely if Americans realized that the likely effect of such a deal would include an increase in world oil production roughly equivalent to 5-10 MODs?
Consider the following.
First, insofar as the sanctions were aimed at stopping Iran from having a nuclear program, or having relations with Iraq, Hamas, or Hizbollah that the US doesn't like, they have obviously not achieved their goals. If sanctions are expanded, (for example, by trying to ban Iran's gas imports, through what effectively amounts to an international blockade, as AIPAC has proposed) then they will drive up the price of oil still further, and it seems unlikely that the U.S. will be able to get Russia and China and Germany to agree to expand the sanctions to the degree necessary to achieve any of those goals.
Second, a key reason that the U.S. can't win support for the effective expansion of sanctions is that current U.S. policies are based on goals that are not widely seen internationally as legitimate. It's one thing to say you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. For that goal there is widespread international support (including -- according to their repeated public statements -- all the leaders of Iran, and the majority of Iranian public opinion.) But the current U.S. goal is to prevent Iran from having any nuclear program at all that involves the enrichment of uranium, and that goal has weak international support.
Suppose the U.S. changed its goals with respect to Iran to make them more realistic. Suppose, for example, that instead of trying to ban enrichment of uranium in Iran entirely -- a nonstarter for the overwhelming majority of Iranian public opinion -- the US were to seek to put Iran's uranium enrichment program under full international control, as Ambassador Pickering has proposed.
Suppose that instead of the unrealistic goals of demanding that Iran not "support" allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, the US sought Iran's agreement to support its allies only politically and financially, and for Iran to use its influence with its allies to diminish violence and promote national reconciliation in these countries, as Iran has offered to do in the past and indeed has already done in Iraq and Lebanon. Suppose that, as seems quite plausible, as a result of this shift in U.S. policy the U.S. was able to get a deal with Iran, and lift the sanctions.
Should not the fact that such a policy could bring the benefit of 5-10 MODs be part of our debate over policy towards Iran? Would Americans tolerate that AIPAC dictate US policy towards Iran if they realized that it was costing them every time they went to the pump?
Here's a first step: don't let AIPAC drive up gas prices even more. Ask Congress to reject AIPAC's resolution seeking to ban Iran's gas imports.
Ambassador Pickering calls for talks with Iran without preconditions and advocates for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran.
Even a pro Western Shah of Iran did not hesitate to warn the U.S. of Israeli lobby.It was Mike Wallace who refined...........continued
Please watch this video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
In Wallace's Interview with Shah of Iran (30 years ago) you can see the same coward attitude, and biased reporting. After all what do we expect from power hungry, has been, like Mike Wallace. Unfortunately the baton has been passed to his even less charismatic son Chris Wallace who reports on Faux Noise even more biased media outlet courtesy of Rupert Murdock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s&NR=1
Do American people have any understanding about the negative influence of Jewish neoconservatives on the US foreign policy? The neoconservatives have followed Israel and in some cases have initiated the negative perception among about the Muslim world, specifically Iran.
This negative influence has resulted of wasted 30 years in not having an effective diplomatic interaction with Iran. Our policy had been to sabotage diplomacy by under cutting the actions of Javier Solana.
We had build up the expectations before the meeting that mere presence of Burns would stop Iranian producing nuclear fuel; we completely ignored the diplomatic rule of engagement and expected an instant result. Before we could be effective in our interactions with Iran, we would need to have an understanding of their interests and positions, fears and expectations. To start we would need to know what Iran wants.
What does Iran Want?
Before drawing a red line with Iran, we must be clear about our own motivations and the expected outcomes.
We have multiple options in our relationships with Iran. Among these is the continuation of the present status, or a robust start of diplomatic interaction. Let us use diplomatic rules of engagement and talk with Iran. However; Israel similar to the past 45 years, has been a negative influence in our relationship with Iran. Iran had suffered in her interaction with US due to the negative influence of Israel and her lobbies.
Bush knew little about Arab or Iranian world. Ahmedinejad did not call for destruction of Israel or the U.S. but that Zionism was wrong. It 's bigoted and racist. and has no place in America. Get-rich-quick televangelists use it to dupe people. Special interest bribe money should be banned. Our politicians are paid well, have perks they sell their souls to keep. One politician took $250,000 in home improvements from an oil company.
Inhumane sanctions keep us from drilling off the coast of Cuba. We placed them on iraq for 11 years and they lacked lacked water, hospital and school upplies - why destroy a beautiful secular country, churches, mosques, synagogues, good schools, hospitals, women drove, voted, dressed western, now wear the hijab. Millions fled to Syria and Jordan, thousands died. Palestinian children in wretched concentration camps familes were forced into spoke better English than Bush.
Israel, nuclear armed, does not need our money. We pay Egypt and Jordan to keep quiet. A M.E. nuclear Goliath threatens its neighbors, world peace and security.
War is the lowest form of human behaviour." Diplomacy, not cowboy bully rhetoric. Our children and grandchildren deserve better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603711.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603711.html
a nonstarter for the overwhelming majority of Iranian public opinion
The Iranian people do not support any of the Seyyeds' activities in Iran. It is the Iranian people who reported their secret nuclear activities.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/469.php
I would look at the PIPA report with a grain of salt. Such public opinion polls are not common in Iran and people (google Abbas Abdi) have gone to jail if the polls indicate results which are not in line with government’s views. The same PIPA poll also gave the government an approval rating close to 80% which is quite questionable. Remember that 20-30% of Iranians are illiterate and would know nothing about nuclear energy let alone uranium enrichment. I just came back from a trip to Iran and saw no public interest in pursing nuclear enrichment after all the economic sanctions. Even Iranian leadership, despite their rhetoric, will suspend the enrichment if US gives them a guarantee not to pursue a regime change in Iran.
Iran is INDEPENDENT nation for the first time since the 19th century and proud of it. It has the legal right to enrich uranium and use nuclear power. Iranians have consistently emphasized they do not intend to make weapons (contrary to Israel that already has it).
As to your reference to the "people who reported the secret nuclear activites" I suppose you have accepted Bush people's claim who have failed to produce ANY evidence to support it. It is hogwash and the people who know better are aware of it. You, like some other disgruntled Iranian exiles, are frustrated that things have not gone the way you dreamed about. Feel sorry for you.
Great post, Naiman. AIPAC should be tried for treason and shut down, they do not look out for Americans but for a foreign entity.
The problem is not the existence of AIPAC. The problem is the degree to which politicians follow AIPAC's lead, regardless of the consequences of their policies for the interests of the majority; and the degree to which the majority, having different interests, fails to do effectively exactly that which AIPAC does, advocate with policymakers on behalf of their interests.
As Cassius said: "the fault is not with our stars, but with ourselves, that we are underlings."