Friday, September 15, 2006

 

Disagreeing with Charles Krauthammer

Although it's rare, sometimes columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer gets it wrong, at least in some of the details, of his latest essay. He writes:

An attack on Iran will likely send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist.

Oil prices have fallen 17% from the summer high and will fall further because there is a huge glut of oil out there and demand has actually fallen. Traders and speculators do tend to panic and bid up prices during crises but it never trumps supply and demand for long.

There are few non-African nations that could less afford to forego selling their oil resources than Iran and Venezuela. Barring a coup or a miracle, Chavez should not survive the next elections. If Iran were to stop its oil income, the country's already weak economy would decline rapidly to famine stage. Krauthammer continues:

But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.

Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.

This is more likely than Iran suspending oil sales, but I believe we have the military might to keep the Iranian missile launchers away from the shipping channels in the Hormuz strait. Oil prices could rise from increased insurance premiums for the super tankers, but the shipping of oil would continue and we have plenty of super tankers.

Iran does not have sufficient refining capacity to supply its domestic gasoline and diesel needs and has to import fuel. The little refining infrastructure it has could be destroyed really with one airstrike and the ships and trucks bringing it in could be targeted and interdicted. Silkworm launchers are too heavy to be moved by hand.

Yes, the decision to attack Iranian nuclear weapons plants after the current appeasement diplomacy fails will have some costs but it is Iran which is the vulnerable one, not the wider world.

Still, Krauthammer's point that military action is not to be taken lightly is one we should remember; but I, for one, am convinced that dealing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the real power, the mullahs, is similar to dealing with Hitler in the 30s. It just isn't going to work. And we allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons at the World's peril.

Comments:
Roger,

This is off topic but I need to send out the bat signal for Doug Sundseth.

Doug. I did not ask you to weigh in regarding the recent determinations in Prague b/c frankly, the result was very upsetting. I am only glad that Clyde Tombaugh, some of whose ashes are streaking toward Pluto on the New Horizons spacecraft as I write this, departed this sphere prior to that decision.

Late yesterday afternoon, shortly b/f my right rear tire suffered a fatal puncture on the Russellville Road, the dial on my car radio inexplicably tuned into NPR on which I heard an interview w/ Tom Wigley, an Australian born senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.

Dr. Wigley proposed seeding (my word not his) the stratosphere w/ particles that would deflect some sunlight from the surface of the earth as a means of combatting global warming. This would mimic the effect of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

I confess that the words "unintended consequences," "hubris," and "Frankenstein" did flash across my mind. I also thought I would solicit your thoughts as it concerns a matter astrophysical and I appreciate your opinion.

There is an article on the subject on p. 14 of Rocky Mountain News today (September 15) and the interview is available @ www.npr.org.

Thanks in advance.

T
 
The straight of Hormuz will be handled by the fact that we have a constant, naval military presence in the UAE.

Mark Dunn
 
Tony:

I've commented on the IAU stuff elsewhere. The upshot is that the IAU decided to change its style guide; I have not changed mine and you need not change yours: the map is not the terrain.

I share your reservations (horror?) at the idea of strewing particles throughout the upper atmosphere to increase the albedo of the planet. I don't know whether changing the planet's functional reflectivity is a good idea or a bad idea on its face. I'm pretty sure it's a really bad idea to change it in a way that is nearly impossible to reverse and in the absence of real information about what the effects would be.

The informed speculation I've seen indicates that the planet has a propensity to drop into pretty nasty ice ages every so once in a while. The consequences of a real ice age (especially a fast-onset ice age) seem to me to be rather worse than a bit of warming, at least in the near term. If it turns out that we need to reduce the planetary energy budget (note that this would reduce the efficiency of solar collectors, reduce the energy available to grow plants of all sorts, etc.), I'd be more comfortable with something more reversible.

(I've heard speculation about orbiting solar shades, for instance, which would be more amenable to removal if it turns out that we got "climate" wrong yet again.)
 
I'm going to ignore Tony and Doug's private conversation except to say, I'm for shades.
Mark, you're right of course about our continuous naval presence in the Persian Gulf (or whatever it's called now) and in the Strait but that would control water bourn threats and what could be detected on shore from ship. I think we'd need airforce and naval aviator assets to create a no man's land a Silk worm misile's range distance inshore. I tend to think that's about 5 miles but maybe that's generous. Air sown mines and CAPs always ready to pounce on someone trying to set up a ship killing missile on shore. Thanks for the comment.
 
OK, back on topic:

I've seen several sites that claim an effective range of 95-100km for the Silkworm. With active defenses (anti-missile missiles, CIWS), though, the effectiveness drops as the time to respond increases. At long ranges, I'd expect that P-3s and AWACs would provide enough warning to substantially degrade capability to attack military ships effectively.

Merchant ships are easier targets to hit, though. They're bigger, slower, and have no defenses. On the flip side, big ships can sometimes take quite a bit of punishment before they are seriously damaged.

The big problem, though, is insurance. Ship insurers are understandably reluctant to insure ships in warzones and have made sure their insurance contracts reflect that reluctance. Some shipping lines will be unwilling to enter a warzone, and the rest will jack their rates substantially.

The combination will restrict supply (by reducing the number of ships calling on Gulf ports), which will raise the price of oil quite a bit. And the increased shipping rates will raise the price still more.

The last thing to remember is that the demand for oil is relatively inelastic. (That is, usage is not especially sensitive to price.) If demand drops below supply, price can rise precipitously.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?