Posted on 09/15/2006 10:42:51 PM PDT by jdm
i nominate this as our probable path-TX for concept/idea.
This article from bloomberg.com has some interesting points. Seems to be a realistic assessment of the situation:
Iran Might Try to Disrupt Hormuz Oil Flow If Attacked by U.S.
By Tony Capaccio
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- Iran may be planning to share the pain of any U.S. attack with the world's oil markets.
A strike against Iran's nuclear program would probably be met with an effort to choke off oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, military planners and Middle East analysts say. The goal would be to trigger a market disruption that would force President George W. Bush to back off.
The Iranians hope the mere threat of such action may lead oil-consuming nations to pressure the U.S. to resolve the dispute short of a military confrontation. About 17 million barrels of oil, representing one-fifth of the world's consumption, is shipped through the strait every day.
Roiling the markets would be part of a broader retaliation that would include terrorist attacks against U.S. forces or other interests in Iraq and worldwide, said Michael Eisenstadt, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Central Command analyst.
``They will not allow us to limit the conflict to `tit for tat' -- us hitting their nuclear facilities, and they restricted to hitting deployed American military,'' Eisenstadt said in an interview.
General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said in a written statement to the House Armed Services Committee on March 15 that Iran is expanding naval bases along its shoreline and now has ``large quantities'' of small, fast- attack ships, many armed with torpedoes and Chinese-made high- speed missiles capable of firing from 10,000 yards.
``Iran's capabilities are focusing on disrupting oil traffic through the straits,'' Army Colonel Mark Tillman, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington and former Central Command planner, said in an interview. ``Why else would they have these things?''
Relying on Diplomacy
The Bush administration has said it will rely on diplomacy to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program, which Iran says is designed to produce electricity but the U.S. suspects is aimed at producing a bomb.
John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Congress on May 2 that those diplomatic efforts so far have been frustrated by Iran's clout as the world's fourth-largest oil supplier.
``The Iranians have been very effective at deploying their oil and natural-gas resources to apply leverage against countries to protect themselves from precisely this kind of pressure, in the case of countries with large and growing energy demands like India, China and Japan,'' Bolton said.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his nation won't rule out cutting oil exports in response to pressure over the nuclear dispute.
Rising Prices
Escalation of the dispute has helped to boost oil prices by 17 percent over the past two months. The current price of about $70 reflects potential disruptions over the next six to 18 months, said Jamal Qureshi, lead oil industry analyst for PFC Energy, a risk-analysis firm in Washington.
Even with that, a military conflict would shock the system so ``you'd very likely get a quick spike that could very easily go to $100 a barrel,'' until the U.S. releases oil from its strategic reserve, Qureshi said in an interview. ``It could get messy real quick.''
While Iran probably couldn't close the Strait of Hormuz -- which lies between Iran and Oman and is 34 miles at its narrowest point -- it could cause havoc by threatening or attacking individual oil tankers or terminals, analysts said. Oil from Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is shipped through the Strait.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard-controlled navy ``has been developed primarily to `internationalize' a conflict by choking off oil exports through the Strait,'' Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, told lawmakers.
`Pressure the U.S.'
Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism and Middle East analyst for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said that even if Iran can't block the strait, it ``can create a sense of crisis to drive up the price of oil, and presumably'' the nations that consume all that oil ``would pressure the U.S. to stand down or shrink from confrontation or end it quickly,''
Iran supplies China with 4 percent of its oil; France, 7 percent; Korea, 9 percent; Japan, 10 percent; Italy, 11 percent; Belgium, 14 percent; Turkey, 22 percent; and Greece, 24 percent, according to Clifford Kupchan, a director of the Eurasia Group in Washington, a global risk-consulting group.
These figures ``tell me that Iran for the foreseeable future will have considerable `petro-influence' over prospective U.S. allies,'' Kupchan said in an interview.
Terrorist Attacks
Eisenstadt said disrupting world oil markets might not be Iran's ``preferred avenue of response'' if attacked. ``I think they are more likely to respond in Iraq by launching terrorist attacks,'' he said. ``Disrupting oil shipments is a far second or third, but this is something we have to prepare for.''
W. Patrick Lang, formerly the chief Middle East analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Iran ``could unleash the Shiites en masse in Iraq, and kicking that up would place us in a very different position there. You would have a lot of people out there in the streets with rifles.'' Shiite Muslims make up 89 percent of Iran's population, and are a majority in Iraq.
Rear Admiral Jeffrey Miller, deputy commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, said, the U.S. has ``the capability to keep the straits open and clean them up if that should be required.''
``We understand the importance of keeping all the choke points'' open ``and commerce moving,'' Miller said in a telephone interview May 3 from Manama, Bahrain.
Missiles and Seals
The U.S. has about 45 vessels in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea region, including the USS Ronald Reagan, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, and five escorts, including the USS Tucson, an attack submarine that can fire new tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and launch Navy Seal commandos.
Lang said the U.S. military, in a conflict, ``would be all air and naval, with no ground operation.''
``Iran might surprise the U.S. by sinking a tanker in the gulf or something and then the U.S. Navy would beat the bejesus out of them, but they could cause a spike in oil prices for a month or two,'' Lang said in an interview.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington acapaccio@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 5, 2006 00:17 EDT
Very cool post.
I think you will be very sorry you made that assertion when the readers ponder your reply to a simple, single word question,
Why?
I keep a file of interesting quotes from various people..
That on came back to my mind around 9/11.. I'll look around for a time,place and date for ya...
Googled Winston'quote up here:
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2531....
FYI... here's another favorite of mine....
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
By the way, if you are bored and among the right sort ( those who read and write ) You might ask them, who is the greatest man of the 20th century? If you live in Germany as I do, you'll get the most bizarre kinds of answers but almost never, Churchill.
I agree with much of what you say with this caveat: Israel is an ally, a democracy, and an extension of Judaeo-Christian Western civilization.
I think to some extent we are in a "clash of civilizations" and to this extent our struggle is also the same as Israel's. They're the "little Satan" and we're the "Great Satan" - but we face a common enemy that's determined to destroy us both. I don't see this alliance as simply a temporary matter of happenstance -- but one that is crucial and fundamental to the war against jihadists.
By the way, criticizing Israel doesn't mean one is anti-Semitic although some critics are. Pat Buchanan, where are you?
Interesting set of postings, much good comment.
Wild card = Pakis. We attack Iran and this provokes the Mullahs to take over Pakistan - then who has a bunch of Nweapons?
BTW, I used the work attack rather than strike. To me the work "strike" invokes the use of Nweapons. Not always a good first choice, given that Iran is still pretty close to Russia.
The Iranian leadership is not rational or sane as we understand the concepts. Raising the volume isn't a tactic, raising the volume IS THE POINT.
George Bush will be in office for another 27 months.
Spot on!
It's more a question of, "Who's first?" Europe is showing their civilization is not worthy to survive.
Excellent Southhack!
Does Bush need permission from Congress to "push the button"?
"If I know President Bush's character, he won't leave office without arriving at a solution-- diplomatic or otherwise, and I'm leaning toward a military solution."
I was thinking the very same thing.
Excellent analysis. Sadly, I think he's right.
Excellent analysis. Sadly, I think he's right.
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.