Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Iran, National Security, and the Price of Oil

Obama gave an impressive performance in last night’s debate. But a number of comments he made on the foreign policy front were worrisome. For this post, I will focus on the following statement Obama made in response to a question about defending Israel from an Iranian attack:

“…we can reduce our energy [oil] consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money…”

Putting aside the silliness of the idea that Iran would decide to attack Israel, thereby precipitating the nuclear evisceration of Tehran, Obama’s comment shows the degree to which our thinking on energy (and other issues) has been totally bent out of shape by fear of Iran. The idea that we should develop alternative sources of energy because it will make Iran poorer is bassackwards from a national security standpoint.

The United States and the rest of the world consumes such large quantities of oil because oil has been (and will likely continue to be) by far the most cost-efficient form of energy on the planet, especially for transportation. Therefore, substituting other forms of energy for “foreign” oil will cost money. Lots of it. Obama’s reasoning is that this increase in the overall cost of energy in the United States will be offset, in part, by the national security “gain” of making Iran poorer. But the progress made on the Iran national security front will be negated by the relative weakening of our national security position vis a vis countries that continue to import oil at increasingly lower cost. While the United States would bear the enormous cost of driving down the price of oil, we would not reap the economic benefits of that price decline because we would be using expensive substitutes rather than cheap oil. But countries like China, which would continue to import oil at low cost, would benefit handsomely from such a price decline.

As Obama correctly pointed out last night, “there has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw its economy decline and maintained its military superiority.” Driving down the price of oil by increasing alternative energy consumption is a sure fire way to weaken our economy in relation to China’s economy. Now, I don’t want to sound alarmist about China. In fact, I think most foreign policy thinkers are overly concerned about the possibility of a future conflict with China. But from a long-term strategic perspective, making Iran poorer by lowering the price of oil is not a clear national security “gain” since that policy would undoubtedly put China (and other oil importers) in a much stronger position to challenge the United States in years to come. As I’ve said before, the case for alternative energy must stand on its environmental merits, not on a national security argument.

Even more troubling is the fact that our inordinate fear of Iran is getting out of hand. It completely bends our energy discussion out of shape, ties our hands in Iraq, and increases tensions with China and Russia. Let’s stop quaking in our boots and start thinking clearly about how Iran fits into the overall picture.

3 comments:

Nate said...

Yes, unless China and other importers are brought into a framework for greenhouse gas emissions that requires them to pursue alternative energy as well. The development of alternative energy here has to include that push, otherwise the only thing that will change is the countries using the oil and creating the emissions. But I think that is a realistic goal of an Obama presidency.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Obama was thinking more along the lines of "keeping the money in the family", which is a strategy used by the rich. If you and I transfer $10 back and forth between each other- say if I want to buy your candy bar then later you want to buy my pencil- our net worth stays $10. But if one of us decides to buy an Iranian candy apple for 10 cents, our net worth falls to $9.95.

Anonymous said...

uh, $9.90. about that nickel...