I was watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and his two person panel was discussing Iranian nuclear research. Trita Parsi, a middle east specialist from John Hopkins University was noting that currently, the task of reigning in Iran has been outsourced to the European Union. Clearly, the EU would not want a theocracy like Iran to come into possession of nuclear weapons. Yet, Parsi feels that the only threat for which Iran needs nuclear weapons is the U.S. (he gives reasons on the show which I linked to above). Therefore, the only entity with an immediate vested interest (from a security standpoint) is the U.S.
I immediately questioned the relevance of our energy policy. Why do we rely on a natural resource that is highly concentrated in an area that is so anti-American? There are clearly other resources that can be used. Would we begin agitating our neighbors? Would Canada and Mexico go to war over offshore wind farming? Nuclear plants placed at the border? Hydroelectric dams on the Rio Grande?
Is part of the reason we rely on foreign oil, to keep the wars foreign also?
Where does the US get oil from? For 2002 I found the these numbers as the top six:
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia: 16.9%
Mexico: 15.1%
Canada: 15.0%
Venezuela: 14.4%
Iraq: 11.4%
Nigeria: 5.9.%
These are from http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp
You can find more recent (and detailed) numbers at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/petro.html
From what I can tell, in 2005, our imports from Saudi Arabia dropped to number 3 on a level very close to that of Venezula, but otherwise it is the same players.
I actually suspect that it is China, not the US, that will have the security imperative.
From the EIA webpage: "Despite efforts to diversify its sources of supply, roughly half of China's imported oil comes from the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia alone accounting for 17 percent in the first quarter of 2005." Another of its major mid-east contributers is Iran, unlike the US.
Of course, also seen from that webpage is that at this point the lion's share of China's oil consuption is produced domesticly. The prices are under regulation currently, which would lessen the economic interest in exporting there.
Which begs the point: why do oil prices seem so sensitive to mid-east security? We demand oil that isn't produced from the mideast, but the rest of the world isn't quite as picky. If mideast oil prices increase, or supply drops (more usual), these other nations begin tapping the non-mideast suppliers, driving up their demand = higher prices.
Oh, and of course there's OPEC, which while has many non-mideast members, certainly sets prices with mideast security in mind.
As long as we remain in a relatively free oil market, the supply fluxuations in the mideast will give us price fluxuations. If the situation turns to certain countries embargoing the US, such as the mid eastern or east asian ones, we will certainly have less gas, and will likely pay more for it, but we won't be SOL.
After re-reading the original post, I realized that just noting that Mexico and Canada are already providing a great deal of our energy doesn't really answer the question. It's part of it - we already rely upon them, but diversifying energy sources definitely seems like a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the windfields and dams be near our borders?
I suspect putting a nuclear plant right on the border would irritate relations to a large degree. "We thought we'd share the environmental risk with you." "Did you ask?"
I think Trita's points are interesting, stratfor had a very different view of things. Arguably, the reason why negotiations with Iran have been outsourced to the EU is that we've already put sanctions on Iran, but the EU, China and Russia all trade with Iran extensively. So, they have a lot of the levers necessary to influence Iran, and if we want to create an international consensus contra Iranian nukes, it will have to be on the Europeans terms.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the Iranians have been using the Nuclear issue to divide Europe and the US, framing the situation as a problem of American Agression. But.. The new head of government in Iran seems to have ended that strategy and gone for head-on confrontation. Stratfor says he's trying to win back Iran's place as the vanguard of radical Islamism. Parsi seems to think it's because they know that there isn't anyone in a position good enough to oppose them. Iran is in a strong position I think, high oil prices, the lone super-power wrapped up in Iraq, Israel without strong leadership, who's going to stop them?
Basically, the EU and China would have to get together on sanctions to effectively hurt Iran, but Iran might just be willing to take it in order to pump up its radical cred.