nothin' wrong with a "double-barrel ping"...
Posted on 06/22/2004 6:31:13 AM PDT by Constitution Day
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?
Tick tock tic toc... 130 days to go when the Islamo-Commies' sphincter muscles should get tighter than 72 virgins on Sunday.
Also, oil just wouldn't rise to $60. At some point between $40 and $60, you'd have a lot of extra production come on line, from Mexico, Venezuela, Texas, Alberta, the Urals, Alaska and Oklahoma. It may not make much sense to pump it out of these places at $40, but at $45 maybe, or at $50....
Our good friends the Saudis will save us.....
Actually, that would translate into about $3-$3.50 a gallon. Kerry for president would be a disaster for the entire world of free people.
If $42 crude=$2.10 gasoline, I'd say $60 crude would be something less than $5.00 gas.
We'll give them plenty of radioactive material if they really want it.
: )
If Mr. Ledeen has a single shred of evidence to support this assertion, then I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll give these meanderings no more credibility than I'd give Slick Willie's book.
I totally agree, it is.
Didn't I read that the Navy has quite a few carriers at sea now, many more than usual?
Not really. Iraq was sold to him as a huge win-- saving the world from Iraq's WMD stockpiles and having most every Iraqi shower us with flowers and gifts with their liberation and the shiny new Arab democracy as a ray of hope to all. When he declared "Mission Accomplished," attacking Iraq looked like a brilliant move. I recall Chris Matthews talking about how we're all neo-cons now, because of how popular going to war was at that time.
A nice chance for Blair to shore up his popularity, if he acts strongly and effectively here. If he doesn't defend his boys, his popularity will fall even lower.
lol
Are they prepared to have their culture set back a thousand years?
No, wait a minute: it already IS a thousand years behind...
BTTT!
I agree that Bush is not Kerry and Kerry may not have had the nerve to go to war in Iraq. But Bush is still a politician and I would be really surprised to see any military response to Iran before Nov. I may be in for a surprise but the polls show the race is still too close to call an early victory.
Why are we automatically assuming that there is any need for a "military response" at all? Based on what I've read about this incident, it appears that these British sailors were captured in Iranian waters. I would hope the U.S. Navy would have done the same thing back in the 1970s if some Soviet trawler were laying marine detection equipment across the mouth of New York harbor.
There is a set date for US troops to leave and Iranian troops are massing on the Iraqi border.
Sure doesn't sound good for the Iraqi provisional government.
nothin' wrong with a "double-barrel ping"...
Well Iran supports terrorism. George Bush is fighting a war on terroism. Maybe Iran had the right to do what it did but with the new developments regarding their attempts at obtaining plutonium this places them in a very negative light. How else do you fight a war on terrorism ? Look at what Sharon has done in the last couple of months and it seems to be winning.
Horsefeathers! The Iranians could much more eaily use their network to sabotage the pipelines within Iraq without involving the British and by extension the Americans.
The Assahollahs are dangerous but not stupid.
I'll quote this one bit in particular:
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.
Iran picks up a bunch of British sailors laying detection equipment in the Persian Gulf region, and the author makes the wild (and thoroughly unsubstantiated) accusation that Iran did this because they are planning to attack Iraqi oil terminals.
The notion that Iran simply didn't like the idea of British sailors carrying out a covert military mission in Iranian waters is apparently beyond the author's infantile mental capabilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.