Japan’s Yen for Iran’s Black...

Josh Marshall finds some correlation between the stratospheric rise in oil prices and American saber rattling with Iran. While there is no reason to question that there is some connection, the larger question remains why the aggressive posture in the first place, and why the threat of military force?

It’s clear that the neo-cons still largely in charge of our foreign policy have never seen a problem that they didn’t see as a cause to bomb someone. The theory that any challenge can be met with pure force of will has been explained, if you can follow the logic, by such mental midgets as Victor Davis Hansen. The “Shock and Awe” tactic at the start of the Iraq invasion was predicated on a theory about the “Arab” mentality that emphasized obeisance to superior force and strength of will. If we just overwhelmed them with our power to destroy, they would become compliant and submissive.

That theory has turned out to be flawed.

However, neo-con personal insecurity alone is not really sufficient to explain the current round of threats from Cheney, Bush and the Congress. Nor is the much-touted Iranian nuclear program. As those who know tell us, Iran’s nuclear weapons program – if it exists – is many years away from delivering a weapon. The administration’s neglect of North Korea and indifference to Pakistan has also shown that they are not particularly concerned about nuclear proliferation. As such, the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran appears to be no more than a pretext.

Likewise the alleged Iranian presence in Iraq. If anyone is this administration was serious about fixing the situation in Iraq they would have to look no farther than conditions in Iraqi cities and among Iraqi civilians.  This must too be chalked up as mere pretext which also conveniently serves to find a scapegoat for Iraq as well.

So none of the stated reasons pans out.  One gets the sense – given an administration composed of Texas oil men, and with Iran having a lot of oil trade as opposed to North Korea for example which has none – that the latest round of verbal aggression has something to do with oil.  Perhaps so.  Here’s something else that happened but was not widely reported around the same time:

The dollar has sharply plummeted against the yen this afternoon on reports Iran has asked Japan to stop paying for its oil in dollars.

In fact the threat posed by Iran is economic, not military.  Iran has been working for a long time to use its role as an oil broker to undermine the status of the dollar as reserve currency, in the past by threatening to open an independent Oil Bourse, and most recently by lobbying for changes within OPEC itself in alliance with Venezuela.

The theory behind this is that since the end of WWII oil has, by international treaty, been priced in dollars. This makes the US dollar the world’s reserve currency, and puts the US in the de-facto role of imperial power by imposing a “tax” on client states. This tax has fueled US growth and wealth for two generations. Empires maintain their position of power by spending a lot of those taxes on military force which is used to keep client states in line. When Saddam Hussein tried to charge for oil in euros, the US invaded on false pretenses as a demonstration to the rest of the region of the invincibility of American might. We all know how well that went.

I don’t know enough to judge whether this theory all holds together or not. However, it does explain a great deal: the attack on Iraq, the saber-rattling with Iran, our obscene military budgets compared to spending by the rest of the world, even how 5% of the world’s population can sustain consumption of 25% of the world’s resources. It makes sense, which is all the more reason why it’s so frustrating that the only articles that discuss this idea sound like crazy conspiracy websites. But based on the actions of our current leadership, crazy conspiracy might be the only explanation.

- jack*

Comments

[PeacePundit]

I don't think Saddam was the only Middle-East head of state who wanted to move oil off of the dollar. I thought other Arab countries threaten to do it as well. In the end, it isn't just a matter of threats; it will be a "pigeon flocking" phenomenon, where no one wants to lead the charge away from the dollar, but someone will do it and suddenly everyone will switch.

I understand that Wall Street cares about the strength or weakness of the dollar, but why would oil companies (who are behind BushCo) care? If the dollar falls, they just raise their prices.

[jack*]

Your point about flocking is exactly right, which is why Saudi Arabia worked very hard to suppress any discussion of the dollar at the OPEC summit. The more discussion, the more likely there will be movement.

There's two answers to your question. One is that oil companies are already divesting their American position in anticipation -- one can only assume -- of a dollar collapse. Witness Haliburton's moving their headquarters to Dubai, U.A.E, not just out of the U.S. but to an Arab dictatorship. This will unquestionably cushion them against the effects of a currency crisis.

But it's not just about money. It's about power. The U.S. and it's leaders -- an extremely small, interdependent cadre of individuals -- have enjoyed an unprecedented amount of global leverage. The U.S. has been able to practically dictate terms to arguably stronger states and get everything it wanted both economically and politically. If the dollar loses it's hegemonic status that all goes out the window. That's far more valuable than black gold on the free market, and they'll go to any lengths to keep it.