At TakiMag, Roach has stirred up a tempest in a teapot by calling for an attack on Iran and suggesting that his fellow antiwar paleoconservatives are unmanly pacifists. This follows from the realist approach to international relations he has been advocating as of late (he praises Kissinger here).
Iran is OPEC’s second largest producer. In a recent interview, the secretary general of OPEC has warned the West of an “unlimited” spike in the price of crude should Israel and the United States attack Iran. OPEC doesn’t have the surplus capacity to make up for a shortfall in Iranian production. A naval conflict in the Persian Gulf could force Iran into closing the Straight of Hormuz which would bottle up Kuwaiti crude and cut off a third of world’s exported oil to the industrialized world.
Seeing how the price of a barrel of oil has almost quintupled since “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” I think the wisdom of such a strike is properly being called into question. We’re already in the midst of an oil shock worse than those of the 1970s and early 1980s. An attack on Iran (which pumps far more oil) would be more destabilizing to oil prices than the Iraq War. It would undoubtedly send the sagging American economy into a severe depression.
Iran experienced Peak Oil in 1974. With $250 per barrel oil on the horizon, Iran is joining the worldwide rush towards nuclear energy to compensate for its own depleting reserves. Neighboring states such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are developing nuclear power without controversy.
Why single out Iran? Why launch another war the costs of which would outweigh the benefits?
Update: Crude is up another $4 this morning and the Dow has fallen below 11,000 because of renewed tensions with Iran. The possibility of war alone is enough to destroy American wealth.