Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 6, 2001 / 21 Kislev, 5762

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Threat of an oil embargo on the U.S. is a bluff -- THE U.S. is now mulling over a confrontation with Saddam Hussein. But there is a reluctance, particularly at the State Department, to anger the oil-producing nations of the Middle East.

Behind this hesitation looms the specter of the 1970s, when the House of Saud deployed the "oil weapon," an embargo on exports to the U..S that led to lines at gas stations and enormous concern that America would one day be cut off altogether.

Today, those expressing concern about President Bush's new challenge to Iraq note that the U.S. now imports a greater share of its oil than in the bad old days when the oil weapon was first brandished. They also argue that U.S. citizens will not support a war that jeopardizes their lifestyle in short, that citizens will not be willing to give up their gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles.

These concerns are misplaced. The U.S. ought not to let its oil preoccupation stop it from chasing down Osama bin Laden's Saudi connections or widening the war to halt aggressor states where it sees necessary. Oil shocks, if they come, are not likely to last long and the U.S. will not be cut off. The bigger danger is that old-fashioned oil diplomacy will deter the U.S. and its allies from combating the threat posed by many Middle Eastern regimes: that they will be ready to deploy nuclear or biological weapons in a period shorter than the average lifetime of a sport-utility vehicle.

That is the thinking at the Defense Department, where an internal memo on the fallacy of the oil weapon is being circulated this week. Authored by Ben Zycher, a senior economist at Rand Corp., a security think tank in Santa Monica, Calif., the memo provides a snappy revision of 1970s history with important implications for current policy.

But to the history. Back in 1973, following the Yom Kippur War, the House of Saud declared an embargo on the U.S. and the Netherlands as punishment for their support of Israel. It also, and importantly, led the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in a production cut. The market responded and prices rose fourfold. OPEC said relief would come when Israel withdrew completely from areas it had claimed in the Six-Day War and when the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people were restored.

But never, at any time, notes Zycher, did the U.S. in fact lose access to oil. Supplies were available on the global market albeit at a higher price at all times. It was the production cut, not the embargo per se, that caused the price rise.

The long gas station lines that are etched into American memories were due, Zycher reminds us, to domestic policy: the decision by the Nixon administration in August 1971 to impose price controls on oil. The administration, for its part, rationalized its action by telling itself it was weaning Americans off their heavy dependence on Arab oil. In other words, the government was forcing consumers to share its own fears about oil dependence. But they were not necessarily realistic fears.

This is so for simple economic reasons. Oil, like any other commodity, is fungible. In the same way that water in the bath flows around the duck, oil flows around embargoes. OPEC and anyone who chooses to join it in a production cut may succeed in lowering the water in that great bath that is the international oil market for a time and in raising prices.

But any act of hostility directed at a specific country or region by another does not achieve the desired isolating effect.

This, of course, is a lesson Iraq has taught the U.S., by circumventing the 1990s embargoes on the country. But the failure of embargoes also happened to have been studied, 20 years ago, by Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy. Soon after the embargo, multinational companies that distributed Arab oil juggled supplies of non-Arab oil so that the shortfall was shared by all oil-importing nations.

Specifically, pointed out Feith, during the October 1973 to March 1974 embargo period, crude oil supplies in the U.S. grew tightest in February 1974 and even they were only 5.1 percent lower then the daily average for the first three-quarters of the preceding year. What is more, the Netherlands, singled out by the Arabs, experienced less of a shortfall than France and Britain, the countries that led western Europe's pro-Arab political initiative. In addition, the Arab states of that period ended their reduction plan and embargo without winning their political demands.

To be sure, OPEC countries could drive up oil prices enough to cause great pain to the world economy in the short term.

But Zycher argues that they will not. Dictatorships, like any government, need revenue.

Indeed, the politics of a government do not affect whether it sells oil or not. An example here is Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, which enthusiastically resumed oil production and exporting after the revolution disrupted it. What matters is that dictatorships will use and are using their petrodollars to develop dirty weapons whose danger ranges far beyond the economic.

The real threat, therefore, as the memo puts it, is that U.S. national security policy is seemingly being shaped in important ways by a perception that is incorrect. If the U.S., alone or with its allies, manages to set aside its preoccupation with a phantom oil weapon, it can evaluate whether it need uproot the regimes doing the frightening stockpiling. There is evidence that citizens will support such inquiries and action: Gallup and other polls show that backing for a wider war is even stronger than it was six weeks ago.

Americans may be willing to trade their SUVs away for a while, if removal of a genuine threat, rather than a phantom one, is what they get in exchange.

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


11/29/01: Which is more important--the war or diplomatic comity?
11/20/01: Unbalanced by a wealth of oil and diamonds
10/17/01: Afghanistan Needs a General MacArthur
09/27/01: The US has gained an understanding of the costs of war for which its European allies have hitherto wished in vain
09/13/01: War against terrorism will rise from the ashes
08/15/01: Geography is no excuse for the state's economic stagnation. Its policymakers should take a leaf from Ireland's book
08/07/01: Teamsters may pay a heavy price for winning its batle in Congress
07/25/01: Towards a patent-free nirvana?
07/17/01: History proves the lasting value of tax cuts
07/10/01: Stem cell research has awakened a bitter debate in Washington but voters care more about other electoral issues
07/03/01: America foots the bill for Europe's largesse
06/26/01: America the litigious, land of the lawyer's fee
06/20/01: Five reasons for gloom about global growth 06/18/01: Show pity for Alice in Tax Wonderland
06/13/01: America must take a French lesson in trade
06/11/01: Time to dream the impossible dream for Iraq
06/07/01: Whatever happened to simple?
06/04/01: When the relationship between companies becomes as close as a marriage, the eventual break-up is often very painful
06/01/01: Loving and hating the Bush tax bill
05/30/01: Will Grisham soon be unemployed? In America's courts these days, there's no room left over for legal fiction
05/22/01: Republicans sample the rhetoric of confidence
05/16/01: Boeing has been promised $60m to site its headquarters in Illinois. The deal looks a poor one for taxpayers
05/14/01: Adam Smith in love
05/09/01: Those rotten Russian capitalists
05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly
05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again.
04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs
04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top
04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers
04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door
03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2001, Financial Times