Documents released by the British National Archives today state that The Joint Intelligence Committee warned the government that America was planning to invade several Arab countries in response to the 1973 oil embargo.




Link

We may never know how accurate that report was, or how close we were to conducting an actual invasion over oil (unlike the claims made concerning Iraq today).

Question for debate:

1. Given an arab stranglehold over much of the worlds oil, if another embargo were enacted, would any western nation be justified in military action to ensure the flow of oil?

2. Is oil the most valuable strategic asset for any industrialized nation?

3. Would an embargo hasten the search for alternative fuel sources (provided nations did not collapse in the meantime)?

No. Our so-called "dependence" on oil is really a dependence on a lifestyle artificially inflated out of all proportion to the rest of the world. Sadly, however, our general belief in the U.S. is that our elevated standard of living is not only deserved, but necessary. Could such a thing happen? Of course - it has already. Europe and the United States have interfered in the Middle East for many years, precisely to ensure the flow of oil. We supported the despotic Shah of Iran, aided Saddam Hussein's rise to power in Iraq, and helped the al Saud family create a nation - all in great part to ensure a steady flow of oil.



It may seem so, but in the 21st century the single most valuable resource will likely be fresh water. The question, however, is really of perception. Oil is perceived to be one of the most strategic assets. I can imagine a sadly naive foreign policy in which the flow of oil is perceived to be more important than the actual lives of real human beings - both innocent victims, and our own soldiers. It boggles my mind that seemingly nice, intelligent people can countenance ending peoples' lives for the sake of a standard of living or a continuing profit margin - and that's what it would come down to.



Hopefully - perhaps at least that bit of good would arise from it. Sometimes I think that the world would in the longterm be a better place if all the oil disappeared suddenly.

I want to answer your questions, but a little out of order.

Is oil the most valuable strategic asset for any industrialized nation?

There is no doubt, petroleum products are the single most valuable commodity in international commerce. An assured supply of ME petroleum is, therefore, of vital interest to the US and the world.

In 1972, the United States imported 28 percent of its oil; today it imports 55 percent, and projections show that 25 years from now it will import 70 percent of its oil, this according to Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of oil. Your car. The automobile runs on oil products and is the largest single consumer of steel, rubber, and synthetics. Then think of commercial uses of petroleum products – our airline industry for one.

Petroleum products, especially motor gasoline, distillate (diesel) fuel, and jet fuel, provide virtually all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector. Transportation is the greatest single use of petroleum, accounting for an estimated 67 percent of all U.S. petroleum consumed in 2000.

Petroleum Products

Given an arab stranglehold over much of the worlds oil, if another embargo were enacted, would any western nation be justified in military action to ensure the flow of oil?

This is a very tough question DTOM. Without oil, we would collapse. I’m probably going to ruffle some feathers, but here goes. Yes. In my opinion, we would be justified to use military action to ensure the flow of oil. I believe we would use every other resource available to us before we literally had a war for oil, but if every other method failed, what choice would we have?

Would an embargo hasten the search for alternative fuel sources (provided nations did not collapse in the meantime)?

Of course it would. To the credit of this administration, they are funding a Freedom Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives. From the White House web site:



I'm hoping Eeyore is in favor of the above initiatives too. I'd really like to see him go three for three this week.

So much for free markets, huh, Beladonna?

It's their oil. They can sell it to whomever they want. By the same token, they can refuse to do business with whomever they want. Why is this any different just because it's oil?

We've known this is a possibility since the prior embargo in the seventies, and as you point out, our dependence has not gone down, it's gone up. Our use of alternative fuels and power sources (like solar and wind) are far behind those of other countries. Why? Because they are more expensive, and more cumbersome.
People here don't want to open their drapes and see windmills in the distance. They don't want to have to be inconvenienced in any way. But if there's another embargo, they won't mind sending our boys over to kill for oil. better that than their precious view be spoiled.

Military action to extract a natural resource from another country, just because we are the 800lb gorilla, and can do it, doesn't mean we should. And waiting until that happens to work on alternatives is rather more than short sighted. $1.2billion for the FreedomCAR proposal is peanuts compared to what we need to be spending on alternative fuel and transportation research.

1. No nation would be justified and ANY nation, even this one, would rightly be considered a Rouge state and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no nation that has the right to force other nations to follow its wishes under the threat of violence and terror.
If America were to be so weak, lazy and ignorant as to remain dependant on petroleum then if the supply fails we'll get as we deserve. Happily there is some really great RnD going on for alternate fuel and power methods. Although I believe that we need to place a much stronger focus on it.

2. Again any nation foolish enough to depend so strongly on a limited resource will deserve its downfall. I would however say any nation's greatest Strategic asset is the level of education of its citizens.. That is were your real power comes from.

3.Yes an embargo would increase the demand for intense searches to begin. The demand would be heavily laced with the threats of violence as throngs of angry inconvenienced whiners began to shriek about how the government should have done something about this long ago (D'oh! stop bringing up my SUV) that business is evil for making us live this way.(I need 4wheel drive for those speed bumps at the Megalow Mart)

I was all set to agree with you Bela, but then I went back and did some more research on the EIA Web Site and discovered that Arab OPEC oil accounts for only about 25% of our TOTAL imports or less than 14% of overall needs.

Our #1 country for importing oil is Saudi Arabia. #2 is CANADA (with essentially the same quantity imported daily, about 2 million barrels).

So... should we go to war for just that small of a percentage of our overall needs?

Nah. Not enough return on the investment of war. Iraq is costing us $1 billion per week; at $30 per barrel, the return if we invaded EVERY Arab OPEC nation would only be $525 million per week. Bad investment.

Would it be out of the question? Nah, again. Countries have gone to war for less than their basic economic lifeblood.

It would not just be the US that would suffer from an embargo but the whole industrial world. So the US and others would consider war.

As amf points out the middle east supplies “only” 25% of our total imports and about a third of the worlds supply – what you forget amf is that there is NO replacement supplier for anywhere near that % of the worlds oil. If OPEC shut down the world oil price would go to over $200 a barrel and a world depression would follow.

Thus oil IS the most valuable strategic asset and a disruption in the market anywhere effects everyone. This is one of the reasons for the war with Iraq. Not to steal their oil but rather to insure that a war (started by or with Iraq) does not interrupt the world oil market and destroy our economy.

Ahhh, but there is--this is exactly why the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created. I believe it has enough oil to last the US for about 6-12 months, and it was created precisely to counter the threat of an OPEC embargo. Don't forget--OPEC needs to oil money just as much as we need the oil. Even with the oil revenue, most of these countries have a suffering economy, and a high debt. Take the oil money away, you'd probably be facing anarchy, and a revolution. Now, which OPEC leaders are going to want that?

I would have to agree with Hobbes that the impact an embargo would doubtless have on OPEC - combined with the buffer provided by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - renders these questions fairly hypothetical.

To address them as such:

1. Given an arab stranglehold over much of the worlds oil, if another embargo were enacted, would any western nation be justified in military action to ensure the flow of oil?
No. As christopher says no nation that has the right to force other nations to acquiesce to its needs or desires under the threat of violence and terror. Does that mean they wouldn't? Hello - the United States just used violence and terror (or was it shock and awe?), not just the threat, to force a soveriegn nation to acquiesce to its desired regime change. Of course certain western nations would - depending on who was in charge at the time - however unjustified.

2. Is oil the most valuable strategic asset for any industrialized nation?
For industrialized nations now, probably yes. I can think of no strategic asset which would currently be more valuable.

3. Would an embargo hasten the search for alternative fuel sources (provided nations did not collapse in the meantime)?
I should certainly hope so - but I wouldn't count on it. Alternative fuel sources should - and could - have been in place decades ago. If the founding of the oligopoly in 1960 and the oil crisis of 1973 didn't do it, why should another embargo?

I didn't forget that point at all.

I question your premise of Arab-OPEC (as opposed to non-Arab OPEC) completely shutting down their pipes to the rest of the world. And exactly HOW does the Saudi Royal Family continue to sustain itself and its country? How would the Ayatollahs in Iran? Your premise is implausible.

I also question your basis for taking $30/barrel oil and turning it into $200/barrel oil by reducing our supply by less than 14%. I can see a 50% to 100% jump, but not a 600% jump. It'd certainly be a shock to the system, but not fatal to our country. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

First I just wanted to say that I believe this is complete rubbish. I don't think the US ever seriously considered this. ..total nonsense.


I disagree with the first half of the question. I think we are not the ones who have the stranglehold placed upon us...I think that is switched the other way round.
Yet I would not agree to any full out invasion of a sovereign nation just for the sake of imperialsm. Altho the US has engaged in what we classify as "war" in order to ensure the safety of the world's oil supply....re: The Tanker Wars.



Oil is valuable yes..but it is hard to classify how important for the industrialized nation in general terms. Meaning it is not as valuable of an import to the US or Norway as it is for Japan. Oil has much value far beyond just it's basic application too.



I think the embargo is not really as big of an issue as it is often portrayed. It is kind of useless to attempt to embargo or cut off a country as internationally respected and depended on by the rest of the world. Just because the Saudi's wanted to not sell the US oil because of their anti-semitic views does not mean Europe was not willing to be a middle man etc. I don't think the embargoes back then made anyone in the US admin even seriously concern themselves with alt fuel sources. Now I can not imagine the Arab world even attempting this. I think just the simple fact of how friendly they are ..and friendly is being used vaguely..to us in regards to our military presence etc again shows why I questioned your first question on who has control of who.

Well firstly you have to believe there was a shortage of oil in the U.S. during the last embargo. As one who was working at a refinery, one of our major ones, during that time it is hard for me to believe in the oil shortage when all of the storage tanks at this refinery were slopping over with oil! They were building more tank farms to hold the stuff! All the while I was hearing on the evening news how there was a shortage of gasoline. Back at work the refinery was floating on a sea of leaked underground gasoline so heavy that when we drilled for footers for the new tanks we had to be careful of explosions in the ground. Enought gasoline and refined oil was bled into a nearby river that, and if I felt comfortable to name the refinery you could check it in old newspapers, the river actually caught fire and burned for hours.
I dont believe an embargo would put us in a positon to have to go to war for oil. We would have plenty, as soon as the price was jacked up high enough that the oil companies would open the spigot and let it flow again, just like before.