Replies

"Burning tankers in the PG will lead to an immediate price surge to past $150 or even higher for crude. The economic consequences to futures, hedge funds and derivatives markets in incalculable, and could lead to a global financial meltdown."

Um, not... burning even a large number of tankers would have a very minor impact of global markets, less than Katrina/Rita certainly. shipping rates would go up but overall supplies would still be there.
Nor would a SCUD strike at any oil field be impactful.
Again, Katrina/Rita did more damage than an iranian military strike (and politically it would benefit us to have Iranians lash out at other middle eastern countries).
Probably the worst they could do would be to hit a few oil terminals, but even the saudi have several alternatives.

Any short term event would be met with strategic reserves.
Hitting infrastructure could have an impact, but again, look at the Gulf war experience - saddam burned entire kuwaiti oil fields, and still the oil markets calmed down.

Part of the reason is that *100 different coutries* produce oil. Yes, middle east is most important, but they are under 40% of total production. Infrastructure is more widely dispersed in the the greater scheme of things than you might assume.

Nor would an Iranian boycott produce a crisis, except in Iran. consider:
Non-OPEC oil production is going to increase 1.8 million barrels of oil this year (CERA estimate) and similar next year. That would displace Iran's full production of 3 mbd.

So, while all such scenarios could impact production or supplies, they are of a marginal amount not an absolute amount. Combined with the buffer that the strategic oil reserve provides, it results in smoothing of the impact.

IMHO, it will be major, but not a long war, just 12 hours; it will also be fast, like a coup de grace.
We WILL have the last laugh at Iran's expense.