I’ve just come back from a very interesting talk given by Dr. Khaled Abdulla who was a guest speaker at tonights Rotary Club of Adliya meeting. Dr. Khaled is one of the pre-eminent economists in Bahrain as his very successful career asserts. In tonight’s talk entitled “Oil Prices and Impact on the Economy“, he posed a loaded question: “Why is it that in this region of the world we are faced with a major conflict whenever there is an appreciable hike in the price of oil?”
He went on to list the first Gulf War (Iran/Iraq) which was heavily financed by the Gulf’s monarchies; the second Gulf War which was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the third and on-going one is the Iraqi occupation by the USA and he suggests that the war clouds are already gathering rather heavily for a fourth conflict evidenced by the saber rattling by the USA against Iran.
These conflicts, he suggests, are nothing more than “correcting” the US deficit against the increase in its oil import bill. How that correction is made is by the US selling arms to us hapless Arabs! Robert Gates seemed to have confirmed that in a recently concluded security conference in Bahrain:
Claiming Iran may secretly have resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, called for intensified international pressure on Tehran and urged Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to develop a joint air and missile shield to ward off future threats.
It’s easy to strike Dr. Khaled’s observations as nothing more than yet another Arab conspiracy theories, but one would be best advised to think a little about these conditions and come to a studied conclusion. There is at least a semblance of truth in them if only by coincidence but certainly merits some more investigation.
Regardless of what your position is; the saber rattling is very real and multi-billion dollar deals have already been announced with the sale of Patriot 2 and 3 to both Saudi and the Emirates to the tune of US$11 billion or so. Pocket change to both governments it might be, but those funds could have easily been diverted to where they are needed most in our community: education, health, infrastructural or even just kept in the piggy-bank for future generations.
But there could be a fly in the American’s ointment. Our crown prince specifically is speaking rather candidly against confrontations, especially military ones. Being a rising economic and reforms champion, I guess he doesn’t want yet another war on his watch. Just imagine how fast the glut of cash we “suffer” from currently would dissipate if we were to be afflicted with yet another military conflict. And guess where that glut would migrate to.
Even more important than cash migration, the very important social reforms about to be enacted would grind to a screeching halt, resulting in our regression yet again for one or more generations.
It is high time that we ignored the warmongers. It is time to take care of ourselves first and foremost for a change. The economic, educational and labour reforms are nothing short of existential. They are critical to our immediate future and cannot wait any longer for their implementation, let alone being delayed by at least a generation due to yet another conflict.
The only valid option available to us is the diplomatic one. Maybe it is time to expand the GCC to be truly representative of the Persian Gulf! If that’s what it would take to keep the reforms on track, I’d welcome Iraq and Iran to be constructive members of the new GCC coalition.
Comments
This is funny. There is little doubt in my mind that Bush is indeed promoting the interests of defense companies etc. But to link this to Oil prices and claim it is to finance the US import bill is laughable. Our prominent economist has got his argument in a mumble jumble, I can not see how he could come up with a line of argument defending this, other than some misleading regression lines.
This reminds me of Paul Krugman’s Accidental Theorist…
Not a very convincing argument. It just sounds like another way to blame Arab wars on outsiders instead of taking responsibility for your own problems.
Dr. Abdulla left out a couple events. For example, OPEC jacked the price of oil way up in 1973 without the West going to war against it. He also left out the US invasion of Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with the price of oil and everything to do with Islam.
I might also point out that the sabre rattling is Iranian, not American. It was Rafsanjani, not Bush, who boasted that one atom bomb could take out Israel while the Muslim world could take many atom bombs. It was Ahmadinejad who says Israel must cease to exist, must be wiped off the map, and so on. It takes quite a bit of Muslim partisanship to translate Iranian threats into American sabre rattling.
You might consider that the kind of unearned wealth that oil deposits confer upon a country requires little in the way of political maturity. It tends to stunt political growth, which is why so many oil rich nations are tyrannies. You don’t need educated professionals with good judgement to run an oil economy that will return a windfall profit no matter what you do. That’s why Saudi kings can rule without ever going to school and dictators like Saddam can go straight to the top with hardly an elementary school education.
Consequently, when oil prices rise, it stuffs money in the pocket of these tyrants, which empowers them to act on all those bad ideas they have. It’s like delivering a truckload of liquor to an alcoholic. Nothing good will come of it.
It’s hardly surprising that when Saddam got enough money to build up his army, he attacked his enemy and the classic enemy of Iraq, Iran. It’s hardly surprising when Kuwait started making money hand over fist that Saddam would want to steal it. Had there been no oil discovered in the Middle East, there would have been no money to amplify the Arab impulse to make war on their neighbors. The wars would be small scale, like the clan wars between villages in Yemen.
You’re kidding yourself if you think the only option for dealing with Iran is diplomatic. Predators do not negotiate with their prey any more than cats negotiate with mice. Iran is already fomenting open war in Lebanon and clandestine war in Iraq. Its ambition will not be curbed with honeyed words.
Hmm, Steve The American, calm down.
I do agree with you that Arabs including myself, like many other people, have a habit of blaming others for their problems. But I think you may have erred in more than one of your points here.
1. For the record, Iranians pride themselves in not being Arab. I am guessing that is more of an ambiguous manner of expression for you rather than ignorance.
2. I am not so sure why you find it acceptable to be jury and judge of Iran, vote it is guilty, and condemn it to war for the words of one maniac or another. I do think the west should keep Iran in check, but the words of a crazy demagogue in so far as it is defunct empty threats should not be a justification for such a misled crusade. This argument is beside the point here, however, and thus I shall leave it at this.
3. To do with Islam ? now be clear about what your saying, as you must mean it is to do with Taliban and other groups of islamic radicals and extremists. Many muslims live in the western world and many of those around the world do not take sides with such figures of hate.
4. Your president is not quite albert Einstein, so it amuses me how you are at ease in critisizing the intelligence of middle eastern leaders, although I must agree that on the most part they find the moral hazard of being in office in such states too tempting to try help their economies, and remain as such stupid or shortsighted if you may.
5. Do not forget that many of those leaders, a list that includes Saddam and Taliban not to forget the Saudis, have been supported by the american government for their own private interests. I think that takes away your moral high ground.
Last but not least, do this world a favor and take off your cow boy boots for you do talk a hell of a lot of none-sensical BS.
Reading the fantastic article frm Mahmood, followed by comments from Steve the American and Isa was a classic example of a professional debate, full of mutual respect and rather valid points and arguments. For me an interesting read, and no comments. Wouldn’t wanna ruin Steve’s response. Now would I?
Is that the theme from “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” that I can hear in the distance?
So whats worse…dumb men running oil rich nations for their own benefit…without ever having gone to school…or dumb men running the most powerful nation in the world for their own benefit…and the equally dumb population letting them…and voting them into office again and again while the majority of all those people did go to school?
Steve,
It appears to me that most Americans misquote the Iranians on the matter of wiping Israel off the map.
Their President’s view in open depate was put very well indeed – he said the State of Isreal should not exist. I.e the regime which is in existence in the Holy Land. The Israelis are not governing the area in a democratic style, they are openly discrimating against the inhabitants of the land they were entrusted to govern by the UN with nothing less than a racist and religion based sytem of population control and it is no wonder that this system and its injustices are fuelling hatred and violence throughout the region.
We don’t need bombs to wipe Israel off the map. The style of “democracy” in the holy land should not be there in the first place. The UN created the state and it therefore has the power to take take it away for the benifit of all the inhabitants. All it needs is a willingness and common sense. If the US really champions democratic principals for all the world and not just for white Europeans then it should insist that the holy land become one state with equal rights for all its inhabitants past and present.
That was the reason why they got rid of saddam wasn’t it – so Iraq could become a democracy? That is what they tried to do in Iraq, so why not in the holy land?
Lee Ann;
American leaders have term limits. When it’s up, they leave. Willingly.
Steve, do you seriously think that Western
powers, including the USA, do not interfere
in Middle-Eastern politics and never benefit
from regional wars?
He also left out the US invasion of Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with the price of oil and everything to do with Islam.
Before the invasion, certain Afghani leaders
were invited over to the US for talks about
a certain pipeline nobody wanted to see go
through Iran. They didn’t play ball and
your military went in shortly after. Do you
seriously believe what you wrote here?
We may not love them so much, but they
are educated people. You undermine your
position with this demagogic drivel,
Steve.
Hey! Where did my block quote tags go?
Ali,
If you argue for destroying Israel because it is an imperfect democracy, doesn’t your logic give license to make war on every Arab Muslim regime that is not a democracy at all? What hypocrisy it is to criticize a democracy from within a tyranny that respects no rights of its citizens nor tallies its votes. You should work to reform your own Arab regimes to come up to the standard of the imperfect Israeli democracy you condemn.
I see Steve the American falling in the sin he preaches against.. blaming other people for their own problems..
americans , still confused by 11/9, think that the reason for their domestic problems at home is because their country needs to “tidy up the place” for other “stupid” nations around the world and would be better off if those nations solved their own problems by themselves.
thats partially why there is a drive now in the USA to use biofules so to minimise their dependence on ME Oil.
its not always oil..its the plague of power..spanning from east timor to latin america the USA is destructively nosey and is seldom to solve other peoples problems.. all at the expense of poor innocent people around the world including americans…
an ignorant giant creating havoc around the world that seriously needs to study a bit of geography and history.. and in dire need of some common sense…
ever heard about CUFI?
AB,
It’s hard to figure out exactly what you’re trying to say other than a vague anti-American statement. The fact is that most people around the world, particularly poor people, benefit from America, its wealth, its power, its markets, its philosophy, its people. That’s why people flee the Middle East to find their fortune and future in America.
You are quite right to say that many Americans think that developing an alternate fuel will solve problems by reducing dependence on the unstable regimes of the Middle East. They’re mistaken. If we invented a way to burn seawater, that would simply increase the total supply of energy, making oil cheaper to buy and therefore promoting more consumption of it. Alternate fuels will have the unintended consequence of creating a larger demand for cheaper oil.
I would say that our Muslim adversaries are the ones who need history and geography lessons, seeing the world through a wildly distorted bias of Islamic bigotry and making war on innocent people around the world. Common sense is in short supply among the Islamists who make the world a worse place everywhere they go. Where exactly have Muslims gone where they have not made war on the locals, where the country has been improved by their presence?
If you want to measure the effect America has on countries, compare West and East Germany, South and North Korea. After WWII, we made our former enemies, Germany and Japan, economic superpowers. What nation taken over by Muslims has become an economic superpower? How many nations can you name that became economic basket cases after they were taken over by Muslims? Iran comes to mind.
“I am not so sure why you find it acceptable to be jury and judge of Iran, vote it is guilty, and condemn it to war for the words of one maniac or another.”_____When the maniacs are in power in Iran, their words are significant. So are their appalling corruption and brutality.
“Alternate fuels will have the unintended consequence of creating a larger demand for cheaper oil.”___That could be dealt with by the US applying a heavy import duty on oil.
Don,
Why bleed ourselves economically to punish the oil tyrannies? The smarter play is to integrate these dysfunctional countries into our economic and political world so that they are pressured to reform into modern nations.
Trade carries dangerous ideas like democracy, individual rights, and pluralism into the bloodstream of tyrannies. This week we saw Iranian students protest their government under the banner of “LIVE FREE OR DIE,” the state motto of New Hampshire. If we cut off trade, the rest of the Iranians may never learn the New Hampshire motto.
Our ideas are better than all the ideological competition and will prevail, if we keep the trade routes open which transmit them. It is inevitable that the Middle East will adopt the best practices of the West and abandon the Islamist madness.
We saw this in the American-backed war
prosecuted by Iraq against Iran. “Live
Free or Die” you say. Teenage Irani boys
weren’t carrying banners – they were
being sent to the front – and they gave
up their lives in the belief that they
were fighting for their country. They
didn’t just say it – they lived and died
it. Khouzestan, Khorramshahr – just
words to us, lifetimes of agony to them.
But they were being fooled. Just like
you. Demagoguery is for fools.
Annony,
Iraq attacked Iran on its own initiative, not on the command of the USA, nor was this a new conflict but rather an old one, Arab versus Persian, that far preceded America. Your assertion that America started the Iran-Iraq war is ludicrous on its face, the product of childish Arab conspiracy theories. What irony it is that you paint yourselves as puppets in your own history. that everyone else acts and you only react, that you have no command over your own destiny. Your cult of victimology inspires no respect from Americans like me, who see it as immature evasion of responsibility.
Isa: “1. For the record, Iranians pride themselves in not being Arab. I am guessing that is more of an ambiguous manner of expression for you rather than ignorance.”
Point taken. While I did not exactly confuse the two, Arab and Persian, I did not make a clear distinction between the two, either.
Isa: “2. I am not so sure why you find it acceptable to be jury and judge of Iran, vote it is guilty, and condemn it to war for the words of one maniac or another. I do think the west should keep Iran in check, but the words of a crazy demagogue in so far as it is defunct empty threats should not be a justification for such a misled crusade. This argument is beside the point here, however, and thus I shall leave it at this.”
I hold an opinion on Iran because I am a free man enjoying my natural right to free speech. Feel free to join me. If you check my comments above, you will see that I have not advocated war with Iran, as you erroneously claim, but rather economic sanctions. There is quite an active production of Scarecrow Steves on this thread, probably because it is easier to argue against war than bloodless measures. It’s fun beating on the scarecrow, isn’t it?
It’s true that Ahmadinejad is a figurehead with little real power, but he is chosen by mullahs for a reason. He articulates their skewed and belligerent view of the world. Perhaps you should be arguing against the loud Persian jihad rather than the nonexistent American crusade.
Thinking the West or America is on a crusade demonstrates a cultural illiteracy of both. Muslims wage war to spread their religion, not us. You are projecting your own flawed mindset upon us when you think your jihad is mirrored by a Western crusade. We couldn’t care less what god you worship. We believe in freedom of religion. You just don’t get that.
Isa: “3. To do with Islam ? now be clear about what your saying, as you must mean it is to do with Taliban and other groups of islamic radicals and extremists. Many muslims live in the western world and many of those around the world do not take sides with such figures of hate.”
Nor do Western Muslims take sides against such hateful figures. It is obvious that a significant minority of Muslims passively support radical Islam and the majority turn a blind eye to it.
Isa: “4. Your president is not quite albert Einstein, so it amuses me how you are at ease in critisizing the intelligence of middle eastern leaders, although I must agree that on the most part they find the moral hazard of being in office in such states too tempting to try help their economies, and remain as such stupid or shortsighted if you may.”
Bush stacks up pretty well intellectually against Middle Eastern leaders. The only Middle Eastern leader who strikes me as intellectually sound is King Abdullah of Jordan. I’d be happy to match Bush’s graduate degree and pilot training against the Saudi kings, who aren’t exactly Rhodes scholars.
How many Middle Eastern leaders have a graduate degree in anything? Where exactly did Saddam get his PhD? There is a difference between low cunning and high intelligence. The Middle East tends to value the former more than the latter.
Isa: “5. Do not forget that many of those leaders, a list that includes Saddam and Taliban not to forget the Saudis, have been supported by the american government for their own private interests. I think that takes away your moral high ground.”
What a fun Arab game you play: 1) The Americans are evil because they support Arab leaders; or 2) The Americans are evil because they overturn our leaders and interfere in our government. In America, we call this “Heads I win, Tails you lose.” It’s obvious that what we do does not inspire a negative reaction, but what we are, which is to say, a non-Muslim power.
We deal with the real world, ie the governments you created, which by some odd coincidence are all authoritarian regimes. Our support for the Taliban was nil. Our support for Saddam, negligible. Our support of the Saudis, the only power in Arabia, only facilitated their murderous bigotry.
Isa: “Last but not least, do this world a favor and take off your cow boy boots for you do talk a hell of a lot of none-sensical BS.”
Perhaps, Isa, you could throw off your self-righteousness and prejudices and consider opinions outside your cultural box. The silly cracks about Bush’s intelligence and the caricature of Americans wearing cowboy boots are evidence of cartoon thinking. Would you take me seriously if I pitched foolish stereotypes of you riding a camel and living in a goatskin tent because you disagreed with me?
I’m English you stereotyping jingoistic
_fool_.
Did I say command? I said that the war
was backed by the good
‘ol US of A. Saddam was nothing without
American support.Do you read, O’Reilly?
Do you? Or are you just some kind of
petit-mal automaton trotting out a few
pre-set responses to certain key words?
Where did I say that America
started the Iran-Iraq war? Where?
Responsibility? Call yourself responsible
when you can read posts properly. Immature?
More rhetoric, Stevie. An opposing viewpoint
is “immature”. America stomps around the
globe like a brutish infant and you write
that I subscribe to “childish” conspiracy
theories. Perhaps you can point out which
conspiracy theories? It’s interesting that
this time you attempt simply to belittle,
not to refute. I hope you can do better.
“Conspiracy theories.” What on earth …?
Please change that from childish Arab conspiracy to childish Euroweenie conspiracy. The idea that America started, backed, commanded, or otherwise directed the Iran-Iraq war is nonsense. The Iraqis under Saddam started it all by themselves with some provocation by the Iranians. I might point out that the European contribution to Saddam’s war machine was substantial, far more than the few nuts and bolts Saddam’s military bought in America. I see no sputtering outrage from you over that.
Aliandra
Its not that they have a fixed term and then go willingly…its what they do while they are there…..and we let them. How many presidents, including the current one, should have been impeached for their actions…and yet we let it all slide by…except for Nixon…I bet he wonders why he was singled out compared to what some others have done.
Whats worse….allowing a corrupt leader to rule your country from fear of death if you try to change it….or letting a corrupt leader rule your country…and choosing to ignore you rights to change it and just letting it slide…waiting for his term to finish so the next monkey can take up residence in the big white house on the hill?
The Iraqis under Saddam. That’s the clue
you need. “Euroweenie,” huh? Get out of
your playground, sparky.
America backed that war. Fact. From 1953
onwards the agenda of UK/USA regarding
Iran has been clear.
You are right about Europe’s role. My
outrage is directed at you because you
are the posturing nincompoop typing
tripe that shows up on my screen.
Again: what conspiracy theories do I
subscribe to? What is the Euroweenie
conspiracy, Steve? Care to explain
that to those of us who are not intimately
acquainted with your cranial can of worms?
Lee Ann;
Americans are, quite sensibly, not interested in impeaching every other president for his offenses (even if you assume all Americans are equally offended by an administration’s misbehavior.) It’s not a perfect world and most administrations have blemishes on their records. Impeachments are costly, distracting, and divert the rest of the government from its duties. Far easier and more efficient to vote the idiots out of office next time around.
Well, I have to say that I am impressed with your zeal,Steve, but I think that you are employing a little voluntary amnesia? Do you have any recollection of the Iran/Contra affair? Perhaps I am a victim of the liberal media spin machine and that was all about free helpings of democracy for Nicaragua, courtesy of US generosity.
Yes, the US is a shining example of freedom and democracy but she is not without her faults. We use a different yard stick over here. Are you really so proud that President Bush might be better educated or smarter than the king of Saudi Arabia? How does he stack up against Kennedy or Kissinger or McNamara or Mahmood?
“Why is it that in this region of the world we are faced with a major conflict whenever there is an appreciable hike in the price of oil?â€Â
Maybe I am missing the point here but isnt the price of oil driven up by the uncertainty created by the conflict and not visa versa? Furthermore, the US imports about $80 billion/yr from OPEC nations and about $90 billion/yr from Canada. Should I break out the musket and get ready for the swarming hordes of oil hungry Americans?
Nicely put Will.
I am not a proponent of this theory, I was merely the messenger bringing the thoughts expressed by a very well respected personality to the fore. Why I did so was two-fold: the first is to demonstrate that this “conspiratorial” theories are not limited to the “man on the Arab street”, the other is to explore the ideas more fully and illicit responses which could enrich the discussion.
I am not of the conspiratorial ilk. Stating rather categorically that we are where we are simply because of American dominance (political, military and cultural) is a rather defeatist attitude and an abrogation of responsibility. In other words, to me, it is a simple cop-out.
I am also relatively sure that you will agree with me that the fluctuation of oil, currencies, commodities or any other trade-able goods are affected by a plethora of factors; ease of access – and the perception thereof – is probably of prime importance.
Therefore, it is quite possible for the price of that commodity to increase or subside due to perceived upcoming instability of its supply, be that due to the weather, calamity, dearth of basic compositional material, or even the threat of conflict.
I do not know the historical significance of events leading up to the increase in oil prices, nor did I follow the conflicts which increased its price in its surrounding envelope. I do know; however, that this is germane to the work of economists whose bread and butter this is.
Hence, when I hear someone like Dr. Khaled stating rather categorically – even if his opinion was spoken as rhetorical question – I listen, and try to analyse to come to my own conclusion.
I am still away from a rather conclusive stance on this issue but I can tell you that I cannot – in view of the this – simply dismiss Dr. Khaled’s opinion as “yet another Arab conspiratorial way of thinking.
Annony: “The Iraqis under Saddam. That’s the clue you need. “Euroweenie,†huh? Get out of your playground, sparky.”
All the clues anybody needs to understand the conflict is that the Iranians were making trouble in the Shia part of Iraq, as they are prone to do, while their nation was in disarray from their ill-considered revolution. Saddam saw his chance to shave some disputed land off Iran while it was weak an distracted by internal disputes.
Despite the wacky conspiracy theories Saddam started his war all by his selft. The weapons he used to press that war were entirely Soviet and European. America’s role in that conflict was related to trivial opening of trade and the delivery of intelligent products that identified threats and weaknesses for both sides.
Annony: “You are right about Europe’s role. My
outrage is directed at you because you
are the posturing nincompoop typing
tripe that shows up on my screen.”
Do you a Euroweenie key on your keyboard that squirts a jet of ink when you are threatened?
Annony: “Again: what conspiracy theories do I
subscribe to? What is the Euroweenie
conspiracy, Steve? Care to explain
that to those of us who are not intimately
acquainted with your cranial can of worms?”
The conspiracy theory that America backed the Iran-Iraq war, a war started by Saddam and fought with Soviet jets, tanks, artillery, light arms with substantial help from the French and others. Produced by the conspiracy theorists who blame America first for everything everywhere.
Will: “Well, I have to say that I am impressed with your zeal,Steve, but I think that you are employing a little voluntary amnesia? Do you have any recollection of the Iran/Contra affair? Perhaps I am a victim of the liberal media spin machine and that was all about free helpings of democracy for Nicaragua, courtesy of US generosity.”
The Iran-Contra affair did not start the Iran-Iraq war but rather sought to profit by it by swapping Hawnk missiles for the US hostages Iran held. This event had no meaningful effect on the conflict. Your argument appears to spring from the faulty logic that if any American involvement occurs in a foreign war, then it’s all America’s fault. It’s false and it’s premise deserves rejection.
What was that about scarecrow arguments?
I really dont know what the level of US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war was and there are likely only a handful of people who do. I think that most of us know that they were involved. They were supporting both sides of a conflict with arms and intel. WTF is that? The best answer I can manage is that that they were mostly good and decent people who, having more information than the rest of us, were making difficult decisions to ensure the best standard of living for the most people with the least suffering. Yes, the US standard of living first. Yes, other people were suffering and dieing. How many people around the world would suffer and starve if the US suddenly lost 15% of its energy supply?
Were the hostages not released on the day of Reagan’s inauguration?
Mahmood, you make my point about oil pricing much better than I did.
Is there really any doubt as to whether or not the US would go to war or allow a war to happen to protect her economic interests? How many countries in the world would not if they had the means? The problem for us mere civilians is that we can never have enough real information.
Will if you get a chance read Stephen Kinzer’s “Overthrow:America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq” Its an interesting read on the connection between commerce and goverment and regeim changes instigated by the US.