Turning Around the Oil Weapon

Once again there is open war between the Israelis and Muslim Arabs, and once again there are threats to unleash the Oil Weapon.

With prices already at record highs the crazy people who live atop much of the world's most easily recoverable oil still aren't happy. They need more money. For palaces. And maybe a few rockets and nukes.

The same Wall Street kool-aid drinkers who think countries should just throw open their borders for cheap labor also hallucinate that the oil market is free. They say nobody controls the price, that the government shouldn't interfere by increasing taxes. Following this advice has produced disasterous results. Out of ignorance or greed these geniuses have helped fleece the West and enrich the enemies of civilization.

The oil market is most definitely not free. Every time an oil oligarch acts nutty the market rewards him. The formula is so obvious that by now even Hugo Chavez surely knows it: Make loud threatening noises and the price of oil will jump.

On top of that oil is subsidized by trillions of dollars in US defense spending. The concept of externality might be a bit too subtle for the Wall Street types. It's simple. Ignoring the consequences can make any action appear sensible.

The US pays to keep Mid East oil safe and ensure stable prices. What would the price of oil be if the US didn't police the Mid East? Lower? Why? Because the US is a bullying imperialist power exploiting the world's resources and those who rebel are altruistic patriots who only want peace? Puhlease. Iran would be a threat whether there were troops in Iraq or not. Without US policing the price of oil would be higher. Some strongman or another would long ago have seized a large enough chunk of the supply to extort oil consumers. Saddam tried. Iran is trying.

So why does the US fear an oil embargo? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Suppose country X threatens to alter their oil exports with the stated aim to harm the US. This is an act of aggression. Suppose the US responds by calling the bluff and deliberately crippling country X's oil infrastructure. This would have several predictable consequences:

• The price of oil would go up worldwide.
• Oil would stop flowing out of country X.
• Money would stop flowing into country X.
• Enemies and rivals of the US, including a coalition of Leftists, pacifists, and Islamists living throughout the civilized world, would condemn the US.

This is not the unmitigated economic catastrophe the fearsome Oil Weapon is supposed to produce. The economic losses shared by the oil consumers would be matched and concentrated on country X. The higher more honest prices would spur the development of alternatives. Other sources of oil, particularly in North America, become profitable above certain thresholds.

Yes this scenario requires the US to make a "preemtive" strike against country X. This action could be legitimately justified by self-defense, in response to the threat from country X's use of an Oil Weapon, and the WMDs funded by oil money. Is it not more humane to destroy pipelines and pumps then to wage war by deliberate acts of violence and destruction against people?

To those who say that preemptive strikes are beyond the pale I respond: This is how the war is already being waged against the US. Civilization's enemies are envigorated by the influx of oil money, using their profits to strengthen and broaden the pursuit of their repressive aims. They are intentionally bleeding civilization into backruptcy. It isn't unfair for the US to fight fire with fire.

The Danegeld doesn't have to be paid. It shouldn't be paid. The US produces a large fraction of the oil it consumes. It can quickly find alternatives for the excess.

Can the leaders of Iran and Venezuela stay in power and export their poison without oil income?