Posted on 12/19/2010 2:41:30 PM PST by edpc
You are making an assumption with no proof.
My other conclusion is not my opinion alone.
Nope.
You're assuming an Iranian blockade would be consequence free.
Nope, there will be consequences, where did I say there wouldn't be any?
It won't be. At the very least, the price of oil would rise significantly, causing economic ripples worldwide.
Well, I think a blockade would also include air and sea attacks to completely obliterate the Iranian navy. The price of oil might go up a little bit, since Iranian oil would be off the market. The US could actually bring the price of oil down at any time. The start of an Iranian blockade would be a good time to do it.
And, do you really think that the entirety of US foreign policy should be so dependent on the price of oil? What happens to the price of oil when Iran gets a bomb an threatens Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq? Do you think the price of oil will go up then?
My other conclusion is not my opinion alone.
So, because "others" share your opinion that an attack on Iran would galvanize the nation under Ahmadinijad, you figure that's it, proof positive. Many others, including me, think the opposite. The people in Iran hate the regime. They think the present leadership is insane. They might take the opportunity a blockade presents to revolt.
Whether you care to admit it or not, it has since the OPEC embargo in the 70s. Energy supply drives the economy and foreign policy of the major powers.
If there were going to be a popular uprising in Iran against the regime, it would have occurred during that sham of an election and the subsequent crackdown. That was an internal problem that had support in the population. Anything generated externally would make anyone against the government (rightly or wrongly) seem like a collaborator. The last time they had external "help," they got the Shah. We know what they thought of him.
I am not sure what you define as a "little bit" of a price hike, but that's an epic understatement. If you look at it from a historical perspective, you may rethink a few things.
I suppose this has all been rather moot, anyhow. There's presently no political will to initiate a blockade or increase domestic production for the security of the nation. That's been true since 1979.
You sound like an x wife, now you can read my mind.
it has since the OPEC embargo in the 70s. Energy supply drives the economy and foreign policy of the major powers.
Actually, energy supply has driven foreign policy since the turn of the last century. My point, perhaps poorly made, was that it shouldn't be the entirety of US policy. At least the US should take a longer view of things and mitigate the effects of higher oil prices by changing domestic energy policy towards increasing domestically sourced supply rather than decreasing domestic demand.
If there were going to be a popular uprising in Iran against the regime, it would have occurred during that sham of an election and the subsequent crackdown. That was an internal problem that had support in the population.
I hope you aren't claiming that, since there was no uprising after the sham election there will never be one. That is a brittle regime in Iran. The more stress that can be applied to the regime, the smaller the incident neccessary for its ultimate demise.
Anything generated externally would make anyone against the government (rightly or wrongly) seem like a collaborator. The last time they had external "help," they got the Shah. We know what they thought of him. I am not sure what you define as a "little bit" of a price hike, but that's an epic understatement. If you look at it from a historical perspective, you may rethink a few things.
If you look at it from a historical perspective, there have been many wars in the middle east since 1945. The price of oil has spiked, initially, during most of them. My point is that the long term price of oil will be much higher with a nuclear Iran. You can take a small, short hit now or a big, long hit later.
I suppose this has all been rather moot, anyhow. There's presently no political will to initiate a blockade or increase domestic production for the security of the nation. That's been true since 1979.
Now, there is a statement we can agree on. A feckless, weak president would never rally the nation to strike his fellow muslims.
In this instance, both are tied together. It's a nice thought that we (whether unilaterallly or through partnership) could blockade Iran, have their government collapse, and shoulder the (arguably) temporary spike in energy supply/cost.
However, there are too many other factors that play into it. It's likely China, Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Turkey would have some reaction to that scenario.
I'm not saying we should just let Iran get nukes and live with it. My point is: The time where they can be overthrown and have the ripple effect stay minimal has long since passed. The window for that probably closed a couple years after the death of Khomeni.
As far as an internal revolution never happening....no, I can't say that. However, my impression is it will never get a chance. I believe the events in Iran are similar to what happened in Tiananmen Square back in 1989. Here we are 21 years later with no real changes in China's governing philosophy. If anything, it's probably worse. I don't believe Iran has that kind of time before something else dictates events. At that point, it's too late for minimally damaging internal change and will be terribly messy for a long time.
No single issue is ever the entirety of policy, foreign or domestic. However, there are significant portions of both that are unavoidable.
Ok.
In this instance, both are tied together. It's a nice thought that we (whether unilaterallly or through partnership) could blockade Iran, have their government collapse, and shoulder the (arguably) temporary spike in energy supply/cost.
You covered a lot of ground there. Yes, there would be other issues, but are we that dumb? We can't plan for an increase in energy prices? You have a president who is doing everything he can to increase energy prices now.
Your main issue seems to be that a blockade would increase oil prices. Ok, instead of this insane "green" policy why not direct energy policy into creating as much cheap domestic energy as possible? Open up ANWAR and offshore to drilling and exploration. Start a dozen nuclear plants. Start two dozen coal to oil plants. The markets will see this and energy prices will at least stabilize and might even start to fall. If we take away the weapon of higher oil prices, the Iranians have nothing left.
However, there are too many other factors that play into it. It's likely China, Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Turkey would have some reaction to that scenario.
Sorry, my friend. Even if the present administration doesn't want to acknowledge the fact, the US remains the preeminent hyper power. I can direct you to very learned papers that make the point that the US could launch a successful first strike on China and avoid nuclear retaliation. The Chinese are well aware of this. Syria needs regime change. They don't rank as even a puny regional power. Turkey? Turkey is a military coup away from being an ally again. Hezbollah should be eliminated with extreme prejudice. I don't think the US should fear or even consider any of the countries or terror groups you mentioned when it has to act in its interest to defend itself, and the western world.
I'm not saying we should just let Iran get nukes and live with it. My point is: The time where they can be overthrown and have the ripple effect stay minimal has long since passed. The window for that probably closed a couple years after the death of Khomeni.
We don't know that. Your guess is no better than mine. I think you are wrong. As long as the younger generation is exposed to western media/culture the regime is threatened.
As far as an internal revolution never happening....no, I can't say that. However, my impression is it will never get a chance. I believe the events in Iran are similar to what happened in Tiananmen Square back in 1989. Here we are 21 years later with no real changes in China's governing philosophy. If anything, it's probably worse. I don't believe Iran has that kind of time before something else dictates events. At that point, it's too late for minimally damaging internal change and will be terribly messy for a long time.
I beg to differ again. Hasn't China opened up a lot since 1989? How do we know that regime isn't a lot more brittle than it was 20 years ago? They might be a property collapse away from total anarchy. The rest of your point is sheer conjecture.
There are no refineries in Iran, they import their gas.
It's hardly news to anyone that opening new areas for oil extraction won't just happen overnight. Neither will the construction of new power plants and refineries. While we have a number of people looking for work right now, most aren't qualified to step into those jobs right away. Even if they were, you would spend a lot of time wading through the nightmare of regulations, bureaucratic red tape, and union negotiations before one watt was generated.
As far as China goes, no....they aren't more open. They're only wealthier and more dangerous. Perhaps you're aware of their tremendous increases in defense spending over the last decade. Most of their efforts are built around a conflict with the US. Asymmetrical cyberwarfare seems to be of particular interest to them. Ask yourself why.
Maybe you have heard of the cooperation between Google and the Chinese government to censor the net in their country. Political prisoners are still a fact of life there. Also, there is a Nobel prize recipient sitting in one of their jails. They were not particularly happy with his award given for his peaceful opposition to their policies.
They hold a great deal of US debt and do a great deal of our manufacturing. Combine those facts with the inevitable rise in energy cost and you have a formula to make The Great Depression seem tame. Our current economic climate can't handle that type of hit right now. I don't see anything in the next two years, let alone months, that will make a significant improvement in the economy.
All the things you propose, Dr. Strangelove scenario aside, are possible. However, it's a long way down the road before all the pieces are in place to make it happen without huge and possibly unrecoverable ramifications.
As we previously discussed, there's no political will to make this happen in a condensed time frame. This is my biggest problem with what you've said so far:
I don't think the US should fear or even consider any of the countries or terror groups you mentioned when it has to act in its interest to defend itself, and the western world.
Sorry, but that's the world in which we now live. Your idea of renovation is asking for the removal of a load bearing wall. That has an effect on the rest of the structure. Generally not good ones.
“There are no refineries in Iran”
Let me see. Do you have Google? Can you type “oil refineries in Iran” or some such search? Do you want to reconsider your comment?
Energy independence for the US has to start somewhere. Forty years of red tape tying up the producers has to be cut. If Mr. Bush had begun this process in 2000, it would be well on its way by now. Even in the present situation, an announcement of a reversal in US energy policy towards increasing domestic production and the judicious use of the SPR would have a negative effect on the price of energy. Further, US allies in the region could help a blockade effort by increasing their production while the blockade is in force.
As for China, they are the real paper tiger. Their "nuclear deterrent" is ancient. They need lots of imports to keep their economy running, especially in the energy arena. Finally, they are fatally overbuilt in terms of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate. They will experience a real estate bubble that will rival the one that is still surging through the US economy. I don't think the US has much to fear from them militarily, or even economically at this time.
You are correct about the lack of political will.
As for your point about the chance for a revolt in Iran having passed with the election. Read this carefully: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2647100/posts
If Mr. Bush had begun this process in 2000...
He didn't. While I don't specifically blame him, the window was likely best in the early 2000s, given the Afghan/Iraq conflicts and discovery of the Iranian nuclear program. Definitely a missed opportunity.
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.