Maybe Underpants Gnomes Will Prevent Iran from Importing Gasoline
Supertanker Ab Qaid (wikimedia)
An international embargo on Iranian gasoline imports is an idea that Iran hawks like to bring up again and again. Apparently Iran, despite being a large oil exporter, is actually a net importer of refined petroleum products, meaning that an effectively enforced blockade on Iran-bound gasoline would force the regime to ration fuel. And now the idea seems to be back in the news as the Obama administration is discussing it with folks in Congress. But the fly in the ointment is that for this to work China and especially Russia have to agree to it, and I agree with Spencer Ackerman that this seems unlikely:
Why would Russia and China agree to such a package? And why would, say, the United Nations agree to a move that would push the Iranians to dare the international community to confront it militarily over a global economic chokepoint? The smart people quoted in Sanger’s piece make the case for the sanctions by saying that the Iranian regime is more vulnerable to sanctions now, after the theft of the June 12 elections exposed popular anger and antipathy toward it, but not how to make those sanctions feasible.
I suppose one question for the folks pushing this line is how badly do you want it? What are you willing to give the Russians to get them on board? The US-Russian bilateral relationship, after all, has many aspects to it. But the very same people who are most vehement about the idea that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat to civilization tend to also be the most vehement about the idea that we should admit Ukraine and Georgia to an anti-Russian military alliance, that we should spend billions of dollars on attempting to undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent, etc. I would think that if people really believed some of the things they claim to believe about Iran, that they’d be more eager to trade some horses.
Russia and China aside, what I think we need to hear more about here is the Iranian opposition. In general, I’m pretty skeptical about sanctions. If it’s the case that the opposition actually wants sanctions, the way the ANC did during apartheid, then that’s something we should take very seriously. But I would imagine that if Iran finds itself short of gasoline that the security services and the governing elite won’t be the ones without enough fuel to get around.
75 Responses to “Maybe Underpants Gnomes Will Prevent Iran from Importing Gasoline”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Can someone explain to me why Iran hasn’t, or won’t, build its own refineries?
Is it some kind of Ricardo comparative advantage reason? Are they resigned to us bombing the refineries, so they don’t bother?
What am I missing?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
My default assumption would be that’s simply one of the many things that the economically inept Iranian regime has bungled.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Ah, yes, Persians have inferior brains.
Next!
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
So we should declare war on Iran (blockade is an act of war) because some morons state without evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons? And where is the evidence that the election was stolen? And why is a rigged election adequate grounds for war? And why do some liberals support this bullshit? Etc., etc., etc.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Ah, yes, Persians have inferior brains.
Was George W. Bush proof that Americans have inferior brains? There are lots of bright people in Iran but few of them are involved in running the country.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
Here is a picture of the skyline of the “economically inept” Iranians’ capital.
So, no.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Since almost no major oil exporters have their own refining capacity, “they just must not be very smrat in Iran” doesn’t cut it.
As emotionally appealing as such a response might be to some.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Face it – nothing short of war will stop the Iranian nuke project. Any takers? The big question is what will Obama do if Bibi goes ahead? My bet – Obama will get behind Israel like a good little AIPAC whore.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Matthew used the wrong photo of the Chevron oil tanker. Here is the correct one:
http://aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
I don’t know what your problem is, joe, but you’re talking out your ass. Iran’s poor economic performance is not in dispute and is one of the factors behind popular unrest.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
kafka,
Depends what you mean by “the Iranian nuke project.”
Nuclear power and offensive nuclear capability are two very different animals.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Re joe at 6: “Here is a picture of the skyline of the “economically inept” Iranians’ capital.”
————-
Steve thinks those lights in the background are campfires, joe.
Burning camel dung.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
Doug Feith’s intel unit told Steve so.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
Steve,
I believe you when you say that you can’t follow me. That’s ok.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
What a stupid “argument”. There are skyscrapers here in Cleveland too, but the economy in the area still sucks rocks.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Don,
Teh Iraniaks are gonna build a nucular arsenal any day now, but refining crude oil into gasoline is way beyond their abilities.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
I’m not sure how much money there’d be in building a refinery either. Iran gives every citizen a daily ration of subsidized gas. Something like five liters @ 30 cents or so per day. I think motorcycle drivers get two liters. Anyway, I think the ROI gets pretty ugly with those sorts of prices.
And regardless of the brainpower driving their economy, Iran isn’t doing so hot. With something like 20% for both inflation and unemployment, they probably have other projects to dump money into.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
And, similarly, people in Ohio can’t master oil refining, either.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
For whatever reason, India refines almost all of Iran’s gasoline. Probably India gets a sweet deal on crude in exchange for this service.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Iran’s economy has been mismanaged for years. Again, this is not news to anybody but Joe and Don and was a major issue in the election.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Re joe at 11: “Nuclear power and offensive nuclear capability are two very different animals.”
———–
Does raise the interesting question of WHO gets to flag down a suicide bomber if it becomes known that the bomber’s truck is carrying a nuke. The effective range of even a small nuke is well beyond rifle range.
I assure you that the Delaware State Police would run like rabbits in the opposite direction. The New Jersey State Troopers probably wouldn’t flee — but would drag their feet until the truck crossed over into Pennsylvania.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Dave NYC,
Wouldn’t their policy of handing out gasoline make it even more worthwhile for the regime to be able to produce their own, rather than paying for it?
But Iran has been an oil exporter for over 100 years. They haven’t, at any point, regardless of how their economy is doing, chosen to build their own refining capacity.
And now they’re talking about building nuclear power plants. The construction of oil refineries is clearly within their economic and technological capacity – whatever the people prone to imagine Iran to be a land of camels and sand might think – but despite the rather obvious national-security and economic benefits of having indigenous refining capacity, they (and most countries in the same position as Iran) don’t seem interested.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Steve,
I’ll pay you $1000 for every quote from Don and myself disputing the fact that the Iranian economy is performing poorly.
What’s that? You can’t find any? Gee, it’s almost as if you’re having trouble following my argument.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
For whatever reason, India refines almost all of Iran’s gasoline. Probably India gets a sweet deal on crude in exchange for this service.
And China gets 15% of its oil from Iran. Sanctions aren’t going to work. It was stupid for Bush to include Iran in the Axis of Evil. Many regular Iranians like America if not its government. Bush was probably playing to Israel.
So we should declare war on Iran (blockade is an act of war) because some morons state without evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons?
Nutbags like Ron crack me up. Sure Ron, to say Iran wants nukes is to make one a Zionist neocon warmonger. Wasn’t Juan Cole pushing this line?
Ron do you believe that there was no fraud in the past election and that the opposition is backed by Zionist Neocon crusaders?
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Here, Steve, I’ll use small words:
Steve: Iran’s economy is doing poorly. That’s why they haven’t built any refineries.
joe: They didn’t build any when their economy was doing well, either. They’re also plainly able to carry out projects as large and complicated as building an oil refinery, even with their economy doing badly. So I don’t buy that.
Steve: But look, here are a whole bunch of links showing that their economy is going badly! Why are you so stupid?
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
To answer your questions:
Refining
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
It seems war and economic sanctions hurt the refining capacity of Iran those last decades (not surprisingly).
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Thanks, why oh why.
It would appear that the “economically inept” regime of the mullahs is doing more than the Shah did.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Joe, you’re just being a moron. My point is that the failure to invest in refineries- i.e. to add value to their raw material- could be a symptom of the poor economic competence of the regime. Failure to invest oil revenues in wealth-creating industries was inf act one of the leading opposition criticisms of the government during the presidential campaign.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Re Steve Labonne at 20: “Iran’s economy has been mismanaged for years. Again, this is not news to anybody but Joe and Don ”
—————-
1) Actually, what is apparently NEWS to Steve is that China and Iran have just signed a major deal for a massive expansion of Iran’s oil refining capability:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601207&sid=a38gIQgiRWnE
2) And speaking of mismanaged economies, I don’t think it is IRAN that is in debt to China to the tune of $1+ Trillion.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Joe,
I know you care more about insulting people than making good arguements, but I think it is pretty clear that you are purposefully misconstruing Steve’s arguement.
His arguement was that the choice not to invest in Oil Refineries was a sign of poor macro-economic management by Iran. You then argue he said that the Iranians are too stupid to figure out how to refine oil. Clearly you don’t think Americans are stupid enough not to see what you did there.
Personally I do not know what the reason is and your conjectures in your first post seem plausible, but poor macro management seems just as likely if not more so. If you would like to actually engage the issue instead of just saying “conservatives are racist morons and I like insulting them for fun” that would be a refreshing change of pace.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: I suppose one question for the folks pushing this line is how badly do you want it? What are you willing to give the Russians to get them on board? The US-Russian bilateral relationship, after all, has many aspects to it. But the very same people who are most vehement about the idea that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat to civilization tend to also be the most vehement about the idea that we should admit Ukraine and Georgia to an anti-Russian military alliance, that we should spend billions of dollars on attempting to undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent, etc. I would think that if people really believed some of the things they claim to believe about Iran, that they’d be more eager to trade some horses. [...]
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I agree that we ought to figure out what the Russians and Chinese need in order to help us out with Iran.
That said, Ylgesias misses the point (as usual, since he only seems to grasp the logic of pressure in domestic settings, applied to Republicans). Building a nuclear weapon and subsidizing Hezbollah and Hamas are extremely expensive undertakings. Iran’s economy is doing poorly as it is. Cutting off refined petroleum products would reduce its capacity even further, making it that much more expensive for Iran to pursue policies that we don’t want it to pursue. That could have all sorts of positive effects.
Of course there’s a downside too, and this policy wouldn’t be cost-free from our perspective. But that’s not the discussion Yglesias chooses to have.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Joe knows perfectly well that I am anything but a conservative, by the way. His performance in this thread is simply bizarre and inexplicable.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Kinda led with your chin on that one, Steve. And Calling Joe a moron just served to underline who is the real moron.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
That’s a compliment coming from you, Don.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Yes, Steve, I understood this point the first, second, and third times you made it, too. Then, I rebutted it, from several different directions.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Nutbags like Ron crack me up. Sure Ron, to say Iran wants nukes is to make one a Zionist neocon warmonger. Wasn’t Juan Cole pushing this line?
The IAEA says there is NO evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuke. Iran is regularly inspected by the IAEA, unlike Israel, which refuses to join the NPT. The Supreme Leader has stated publically that Islam prohibits nuclear weapons.
Ron do you believe that there was no fraud in the past election and that the opposition is backed by Zionist Neocon crusaders?
I would like to see the evidence of fraud. So far it is assertions by biased parties. The onus is on those making the claim.
I believe that neocons promote the idea of “good’ Iranians striving to be free as one more ploy in their quest to bring more war and destruction to the middle east.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Larry Birnbaum, what exactly do you expat to accomplish even if the sanction could be made to bite? Backing off on nukes is the last thing an Iranian government would do if it felt threatened; that would make the government more unpopular.
Typical neocon hubris.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
JD,
No kidding. Why do you assume I don’t understand this is his argument, after I’ve offered, what, four or five rebuttals to it? Pointing to the lack of investment by other countries in similar situations, pointing to the lack of investment by pervious regimes in Iran, pointing to the fact that they are investing in other major energy projects, pointing to the economic advancement necessary for Tehran to be the major international center of commerce it has become.
I understood that point the first, second, third, and fourth times he made it, and rebutted it, thanks. Noting that there is more than a little cultural arrogance and ignorance behind that argument doesn’t change the fact that I understood, and found it wanting.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Here’s what you actually said, Joe:
That’s a bullshit misconstrual of what I said.
And now you’re just lying about it.
Anyhow, lie away. Not my problem.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
P.S. I actually AGREE that the factors you cited make my original off-the-cuff idea seem less plausible. See? We could have gotten there with a civilized discussion, if you hadn’t chosen to be a dishonest asshole.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Re Steve at 28: “My point is that the failure to invest in refineries- i.e. to add value to their raw material- could be a symptom of the poor economic competence of the regime.”
————–
Or it could be a symptom of an Iran that have been under relentless attack for decades by Big Oil’s whores in the US Government — because the Iranian government has the audacity to think that Iran’s natural resources belong to the Iranian people.
1) 1950s: US Government overthrows Iran’s lawfully elected government and installs a puppet Shah via a CIA coup. (Coup was suggested by Britain’s Anglo-Iranian oil company –now BP — which had looted Iran’s oil deposits for decades as part of the “White Man’s Burde” )
2) 1970s: Iranians overthrow the Shah’s regime and “students” take US Embassy personnel hostage to deter CIA counterattack.
One of students was a young lad named Admadinejad.
3) 1980s: Ronnie Reagan encourages murderous Saddam Hussein
to launch bloody war onto Iran. Sends Donald Rumsfeld over to shake Saddam’s hand and offer help.
4) 1990-2000: Saddam fails to conquer Iran so Big Oil overthrows him and takes up massive US military occupation on Iran’s borders. Iran declared Axis of Evil and subjected to clandestine war.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Quit bitching. Your argument is shit. Even you won’t defend it anymore.
Stop whimpering at me, and put some thought into your assumptions about the Iranians, now that you understand exactly how off-base they are.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
PS Forgot to note that in the period 1950s -late 1970s, US Big Oil sucked huge amounts out of Iran’s oil deposits –giving the Iranian people a pittance for royalties.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Don,
That’s interesting that Iran is now putting serious effort into building up its own refining capacity, but I’m still left to wonder why it’s taken this long? Why is this under-investment in refining so common among oil exporters?
It seems like an obvious step to take. After the US won its independence, one of the first things that happened was the proliferation of industrial facilities to refine and add value to the products – cotton, for instance – that we had been forced by the British to export in raw form for their mills. I’d expect that oil-producing countries, which tend to be pretty nationalistic – would be eager to take the step from commodity-exporters, yet they rarely have.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Like the DOE link showed, they do have refining capabilities, just not enough to satisfy domestic use. Especially since their capacity would be split between producing all the various products they need.
I haven’t done any research, but I’m willing to bet that their refineries took a big hit during the Iran-Iraq war, and the sanctions (and the post-revolution brain drain) have made it difficut to rebuild it.
Another item that might be impacting their building of new refineries is water issues. The country is pretty dry and getting drier. Just look at the condition of the rivers that used to flow through Isfehan, Shiraz, and Qom. Only Isfehan still has anything that might be considered a river, and even that is dependent on how much water is being let out upstream. It was dry, and had been dry for a few weeks, when I was there in June.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I understand no such thing. The mullahcracy has provided Iran with government about as competent as George Bush provided the US. If anything the difference is that Americans bear much more responsibility than Iranians for the quality of their leaders.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Bizarro World: Sanctions on Iran but none on Israel. Why not commute Bernie Madoff’s sentence and imprison Tony Shalhoub?
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Cotton and oil are different though. In their raw form they’re both pretty much commodities, where the only difference is in price not quality. That’s not entirely true, Iranian oil kind of sucks, but close enough. The thing is, the refined products of gas, motor oil, etc, are also commodities. There’s not a lot of value added (relatively speaking). Cotton OTOH, can be made into either cheap socks, or a real expensive suit. There’s also the issue of transportation. Moving crude is one thing, but I think moving a supertanker full of a more volitile liquid would be a bit more difficult.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Gas blockade is stupid. It will only hurt the people who don’t need any more shit to deal with right now. It won’t hurt the regime at all. If you wanted to hurt the regime you could somehow sabotage their oil supply chain so that they lose one of their major revenue sources (if not the only one). That wouldn’t hurt the people because they’re not making any money off that oil, and they’re buying imported gas anyway. Of course doing this would cause worldwide oil prices to spike, but there’s a cost to everything.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Sanctions on Iran but none on Israel. Why not commute Bernie Madoff’s sentence and imprison Tony Shalhoub?
Because Tony Shaloub’s Lebanese?
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ron,
There’s a rather large amount of evidence the election was stolen. See the two most recent posts on my website at StochasticDemocracy.com
for a review of some of the evidence.
To summarize briefly here, several American statisticians found large discrepancies in the reported Iranian election data, including deviations from Benford’s law, districts with over 130% turnout, and incompatibility with past voting trends.
Furthermore, several opinion polls done by various organizations (Hardliner, American, Reformist, etc) showed the third party candidates(Rezaee and Karoubi) receiving 30% of the vote, when they officially received three. If you’re curious, the issue is discussed at more depth on my website.
Granted, we can’t attack every dictatorship in the world, but I think it’s fairly clear that the election was stolen.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Re David at 52: “There’s a rather large amount of evidence the election was stolen. See the two most recent posts on my website at StochasticDemocracy.com
for a review of some of the evidence.
To summarize briefly here, several American statisticians found large discrepancies in the reported Iranian election data, including deviations from Benford’s law, districts with over 130% turnout, and incompatibility with past voting trends.”
——————-
So where were those American statisticians during the vote count in Florida in 2000?
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Granted, we can’t attack every dictatorship in the world, but I think it’s fairly clear that the election was stolen.
My understanding is that the elections results match the historical pattern.
Even if I accept your points the result would still have been that Ahmadinejad won.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Sorry, the first sentence of my post should have been italicized as a quote from Trevor.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re Iranian investment in oil refining, one thing to note is that US oil companies sucked out a lot of oil during the Shah’s regime — and prior to that the British raj had been extracting Iranian oil for decades.
So the Iranians may actually have motivation to develop nuclear power for future needs — Iranian oil may be getting harder to extract –especially if they are frozen out of access to advanced technology by US sanctions.
Iran does border on the Caspian Sea and there have been some big deposits found there. However, the US stuck a very long straw into the Caspian with the Turkish pipeline and is trying to suck out the oil via democracy-loving Azerbaijan.
Russia also borders on the Caspian, has a claim to the oil there, and is currently deploying military forces beside the US pipeline in a place called Georgia. I suspect a mysterious series of misfortunes will befall the US pipeline in the future. Russia may cut a deal with Iran and Kazahkstan to divvy up the Caspian between them, with China getting a cut via a pipeline through Kazakhstan.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Ron:
The IAEA says there is NO evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuke. Iran is regularly inspected by the IAEA, unlike Israel, which refuses to join the NPT. The Supreme Leader has stated publically that Islam prohibits nuclear weapons.
“VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain the reputation of a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast on Wednesday.
Tehran denied the assertion. But International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran at an IAEA meeting that it would not be trusted unless “you go the extra mile” and lift restrictions on U.N. inspections.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55G21V20090617
I doubt ElBaradei wants a war though.
Me:”Ron do you believe that there was no fraud in the past election and that the opposition is backed by Zionist Neocon crusaders?”
Ron:
I would like to see the evidence of fraud. So far it is assertions by biased parties. The onus is on those making the claim.
I believe that neocons promote the idea of “good’ Iranians striving to be free as one more ploy in their quest to bring more war and destruction to the middle east.
Well I remember conservative Israeli politicians saying that it didn’t matter who won the election. They wouldn’t say that if they thought there were “good” Iranians.
And as for fraud there was evidence, but the regime was too busy killing and torturing and jailing dissidents to look into it.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Poptarts-
Nothing in your post contradicts anything I said and I stand by all of it.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Just so there is no doubt:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443713159&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
http://www.nowpublic.com/iaea-elbaradei-no-proof-any-nuke-weapon-iran
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You’re very much in error. The huge change in the urban / rural vote split for Ahmadinejad, and the remarkable claimed decline in Karroubi’s vote since the last election, are both incredible in the literal sense of that word. There are multiple lines of evidence that the election “results” were a near-total fabrication.
Some people seem to have the remarkable idea that if one despises neocon foreign policy one must therefore have a soft spot for the Iranian regime. That’s idiotic. The neocons and their hero Netanyahu are no good, AND Khameini is no good (with the proviso that Netanyahu has a lot more power to cause real trouble in the world.)
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I have no love for the Iranian regime. I just appreciate evidence as opposed to conjecture.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1706271
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Because Tony Shaloub’s Lebanese?” (Just dropping by)
That, and the fact that he’s not robbed lots of people blind. Israel’s crucifying its neighbors, torturing and starving out the residents of Gaza like the Nazis did to the Warsaw ghetto Jews, invading countries left and right and generally threatening by its actions to plunge the world into Armageddon, yet Iran’s the bad citizen that needs to be punished? Seems like Jane Harmon really is running the US of A.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Dave NYC,
I don’t find Iran-specific explanations convincing, because it’s the same story in most oil-producing countries.
Forget exports. Iran, and other oil producers, don’t even have enough refining capacity to meet their own demand.
In my American textile mill/cotton example, most of the textiles produced were, at least initially, for domestic demand as well. It wasn’t just that the British were keeping us from being an exporter, but that they were keeping us dependent upon importing their textiles.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Steve Labonne, well, that’s your theory of how things would unfold. We might then have a discussion about the different possible outcomes, what the mechanisms would be, the evidence, the likelihood, etc. — as well as the costs. These things aren’t nonlinear, for example. If the Iranian economy is near and inflection point, then this could really cause them problems and make the costs far higher in relative terms than it is now. My point is that this is exactly the discussion that Yglesias’s shallow and irrelevant formulation — whether this would cause any personal difficulties for the Iranian nomenklatura — glosses over.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I scoped out Norway’s refining capacity and oil consumtion. It’s refining is 310,000 bbl/day and consumption is 228,000 bbl/day. Saudi Arabia is more or less balanced (they’re short 50,000 bbl/day refining capacity), Kuwait has a surplus of about 600,000 bbl/day in their capacity, and Venezuela is off the charts with surplus capacity (didn’t bother to do the numbers, but they’ve got a lot of excess capacity). Sure that’s only four countries, but it’s enough that I’m OK with looking more at reasons that would be specific to Iran as to why they’re so short on capacity, at least relative to some other oil producing countries.
I still think that the comparison with cotton is dubious. The economics of value being added by refining vs. weaving are different. Plus there’s the whole issue of available substitute products for the raw material. Cotton can be replace with linen or wool, although you’d have to retool the looms. Oil is much harder to replace.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The real issue here, once again, is how Obama is a complete idiot with regard to foreign policy.
He’s been supporting this “cut off their gas” crap since his election campaign. Sure, let’s show the world how mighty America is by choking the little people in Iran, while the rulers continue on unaffected. Let’s stir up the Iranian population to hate the US, which generally they don’t. Let’s continue the Bush policy of threatening and blustering instead of engaging.
Obama is a fucking idiot.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
And for the morons here like Poptarts, here’s a recap of the FACTS:
1) There is ZERO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons development and deployment program.
2) There is almost ZERO evidence that Iran has ever HAD a nuclear weapons program of ANY kind, with the possible exception of a nuclear weapons DATABASE program which any country threatened by 250 nuclear weapons (namely those of Israel) would have.
3) The ONLY evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is from a laptop which was provided to an anti-Iranian terrorist group by “another country” – read: Israel. Said laptop has not been forensically examined to establish its provenance, meaning it almost certainly an Israeli forgery. Said laptop also has VERY limited information on it having anything clearly to do with nuclear weapons at all.
Obama is a FUCKING IDIOT for ignoring these FACTS.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
When Richard Steven Hack goes into the auto dealership, he tells them up front that he is determined to buy a care, and his opening offer is the amount he decided beforehand is the highest he’d be willing to pay.
Can you believe those fucking idiots who make a lowball offer and bargain from there?
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
During the Iraq war on Iran, the Iraqis completely destroyed the Abadan oil refinery which at the time was one of the largest in the world with a capacity of 650,000 bbl/d. The Iranians rebuilt it under continued sanctions but so far it only produces 450,000 bbl/d.
BTW, the NIOC just announced that within the next one and a half years Iran will become a net exporter of gasoline.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Even if I accept your points the result would still have been that Ahmadinejad won.”
Not really. The statistical evidence suggests that they likely took the votes from Rezaee and Karoubi and flat out gave them to Ahmedinejad. This would have left Ahmedinejad with around 30-40% of the vote, well short of winning.
“My understanding is that the elections results match the historical pattern. ”
This is very much not the case, see http://www.blogger.com/www.umich.edu/~wmebane/note20jun2009.pdf
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
The statistical evidence suggests
“Suggests” is hardly justification for the claims being made with such confidence. An objective observer would have to admit that rigging cannot be proved.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You don’t know the first fucking thing about statistics, do you?
August 4th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Ron,
Nothing can be “proved”. The p-values on the findings are all very high. I can make statements like “The probability that the deviation from benford’s law was due to empirical chance is less than 1 in 10,000″.
Mind you, I don’t support a gasoline embargo, I don’t support a war, and I support engagement with Iran. But I don’t support manipulating facts for ideological coherence.
By any reasonable standard of proof, the Iranian elections were stolen, and the Iranian government then proceeded to brutally suppress protesters. Denying this fact just makes you, and our arguments, seem naive.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Mutual respect doesn’t lead to embargoes, not matter what the propaganda push is right now. To my amazement, this has been one of Obama’s better moves so far, sit tight and extend the hand, yet watch with discerning eye the latest developments, but all the radical talk and measures are being forwarded by those who don’t believe in mutual respect, cooperation, coordination, or any of that, but only believe in propaganda BS to further their own interest in matters.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am
But I don’t support manipulating facts for ideological coherence
But this is what I think the neocon types are doing. If you read this link, you can see that there is disagreement about the election results:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1706271
Yet some people argue vehemently for one side of the dispute when clear answers are not available. I think it is another neocon propaganda campaign designed to futher discredit Iran and smooth the way for an Israeli attack. Why else would Iranian election results get such play in US media? Americans just don’t care that much. But neocons do.