Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Does Our Energy Future Hinge on Iran?

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted November 30, 2007.


Oil is likely behind our saber-rattling with Iran. But can military action in the Middle East actually work to secure oil for U.S. interests?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last weekend, a Reuters report revealed that the US military has stepped up its logistics to move a large amount of additional fuel supplies into the Persian Gulf.

Correspondent Stefan Ambrogi reported: "A Gulf oil industry source said the charters suggested there would be high naval activity, possibly including a demonstration to Iran that the U.S. Navy will protect the Strait of Hormuz oil shipping route during tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme."

According to the report, the US Military Sealift Command appears to be moving at least double the ordinary volume of liquid fuels for aviation and shipping into the Gulf. Ambrogi says that, "In the past ... fuel movements have provided advance clues of U.S. intentions." The report was based on information that came from an anonymous oil industry insider.

As concerned citizens worry about our president [possibly] launching another war in the Middle East, we ask ourselves: how can it be that the only way for us to find out our government's intentions is to intercept a semaphore signal like this?

We don't even really know why we are involved in the current war in Iraq. First we were told it was to protect us from WMDs, then to bring democracy to the Middle East. Many suspect the real goal was to exert control over oil. This goal finally became explicit in Bush's speech of September 13 when he justified the occupation of Iraq to protect the "global energy supply" from "extremists."

Concerned citizens now need to help their fellow Americans answer a question that reaches beyond the moral and even the legal evaluation of the Bush-Cheney press to attack Iran.

Will military action against Iran work to secure oil for US interests?

In order to answer this question, it must be put into the context of peak oil. Peak oil is simply the moment in time when the rate of oil production stops growing. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute reports world oil production has already dropped from 84.80 million barrels per day in 2006 to 84.62 million barrels per day during the first 10 months of 2007. Brown reports that the German Energy Watch Group is projecting that oil production will soon start to decline by seven percent a year and fall to 58 million barrels a day by 2020, barely more than half of what economists say the world will need twelve years from now.

The implications of peak oil for global security are profound. Lester Brown said: "When oil output is no longer expanding, no country can get more oil unless another gets less."

China is already feeling the pinch of oil shortages and has set up a monitoring system in parts of the country to give advance warning to try to get fuel where it is needed.

China's predicament brings up the question: Why are we sitting on Iraq's oil? In other words, what are US interests? Are we building giant permanent military bases in Iraq for the benefit of American SUV drivers? Or for the benefit of the US economy? But China is an intrinsic part of the US economy now, with its investment in our treasury. If we grab more oil at the expense of China, do we just hurt ourselves?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, iraq, oil, energy

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Cavalry is Not Coming...
Posted by: Tim Brown on Dec 1, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, I think that nobody who could likely win the Democratic nomination is going to alter our course in any decisive manner. The Washington Consensus you mention has been standard of American foreign policy since we emerged unscathed from WWII. American control of native markets through economic and, when necessary, military force is an unshakable tenet of our nation's foreign policy.

True, our policy-makers stayed within the US sphere of infuence (non-Sino-Soviet assets) for decades, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and economic accomodations (trade & loans) with China US foreign policy-makers set their sites on solidifying their sphere of influence over the world's source of fuel. They know that by acting now they are in a better position to ward off intrusion by other nations who want access to that oil.

I don't think we are leaving the Middle East, no matter who is in the White House, as long as our foreign policy group-think remains unchallenged by the occupant of the White House and real alternatives to US hegemony are never seriously debated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

U.S. Interests & Oil Prices
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 1, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why are we sitting on Iraq's oil? In other words, what are US interests?"

U.S. interests are, of course, U.S. business interests (see the movie Missing), in this case those of the oil companies. Those interests want the price of oil to be as high as possible (see the Greg Palast column, "It's Still The Oil"), which is why the U.S. is sitting on Iraq's oil. This war has been a great success for those in charge, but you have to understand what their goals and interests are to understand that.

"Imagine what will happen when gas prices shoot up to $5 or $6 a gallon in the US."

Actually, I'd love to see gasoline cost at least $10/gallon. That would change the ecologically murderous lifestyles of Americans really quickly!

And while I know Kelpie's heart is generally in the right place, I'm really sick of rich, spoiled Americans complaining about high gas prices. Five or six dollars per gallon is what the rest of the world pays for gasoline, and our current three dollars/gallon is no more expensive than it was in the '80s after adjusting for inflation. In fact, our very LOW gasoline price allows us to consume far too much of this toxic crap, thereby destroying the Earth. If all costs, including environmental ones, were factored into the price of gasoline, it would cost around $15/gallon.

Instead of fighting about this, how about leaving U.S. gas prices at their currently low rate, but adding a tax to be used for providing free public transit and building proper public transit systems all over the U.S. This would include a major subway system in each city like the one in New York.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dennis Kuccinich
Posted by: themaniacster on Dec 2, 2007 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i wish he would win

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other down side
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 2, 2007 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you see any resemblance between the US under George W.
Bush and Germany under Hitler? Like we COULD eventually
LOOSE the next war if Bush manages to get enough other
countries angry enough at the US? We already have plenty of
reason to believe that George W. Bush's decisions are not rational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is totally rediculous
Posted by: kkmedia1 on Dec 24, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
online casinos USA | leather jackets The essential one-step product for Il migliore Casino Online complete leather care. URAD NEUTRAL buy cigarettes |brings back and revives the original buy diamond earings color and is remarkable buy cigarettes online |leather and fur is always great leathers to casino bonus |mint condition. Also, it offers efficient casino and poker no problems, Casino Online casino and poker no problems. Whether used as a simple shoe polish, as a cleaner for golf shoes or as a online casino gambling Online Casino Games
das beste internet casino best internet casino best online casinos casino spielen | blog for all | conditioner for Best Online Casinos leather and fur is always greatblog for all |car interior, URAD will surpass Das beste casino | any other product as to ease of use, dry time and leather and fur is always great on leather furniture and saddles, and URAD COLOR to bring a Das beste casino | better shine and hide scuff marks play bingo online casino and poker no problems.
online Casino bonus | Livonia transmission repair shop Michigan | Online Casino Gambling leather and fur is always great casino links and casino and poker no problems on we also have online casino links and more like cigarette links exchange always great| tamiflu, viagra, cialis buy tamiflu, viagra, buy cialis | pharmacy links | link directory, free link exchange | Online Casino United States | online casino US players leather and fur is always great judaica, kotel, menora | Casino Bonus Code | free casino bonus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]