Archive

ShareThis Page
America’s oil weapon | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

America’s oil weapon

Tribune-Review
| Friday, November 14, 2014 8:57 p.m.

In July 1941, after Japan occupied French Indochina, the Roosevelt administration froze Japan’s assets in the U.S. Denied hard cash, Japan could not buy the U.S. oil upon which the empire depended.

Seeing the Dutch East Indies as her only other source, Japan prepared to invade. But first she had to eliminate the sole strategic threat to her occupation of the East Indies — the U.S. battle fleet at Pearl Harbor. FDR’s cutoff of oil to Japan was thus a primary cause of WWII in the Pacific.

A second use of the oil weapon came in 1973. Arab members of OPEC imposed an embargo in retaliation for Nixon’s rescue of Israel with an airlift in the Yom Kippur war. Long gas lines helped to bring Nixon down.

Now the oil weapon appears to be back in America’s hand.

Due to the substitution of natural gas for oil in heating homes and buildings, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, U.S. production has exploded. We now produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Cuba excepted, there is no more hostile regime in Latin America than that of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. Oil accounts for 95 percent of his nation’s exports. Iran is almost wholly dependent upon oil sales for hard currency. Russia is the oil and gas supplier for much of Europe.

With the price of oil having fallen from over $100 a barrel to below $80 this week, all three nations are suffering plunges in revenue. The United States and Europe are also punishing Russia and Iran with sanctions on their energy sectors.

As the oil weapon was used by us against Imperial Japan and by the Saudis against us, we are now wielding this sword.

We should remember that it is double-edged.

The Saudis have continued to pump as the price has fallen. What is Riyadh’s game? Are the Saudis out to cripple us with an oil glut?

Today, not only are Iran and Iraq producing below potential, so, too, is Libya. And we have been bombing ISIS’ oil facilities in Syria. A contrarian’s question: Would we not be better off if these countries not only restored oil production, but also expanded production and put more oil on the market than they do today?

Demand creates supply, and a world oil market where there is more supply than demand would seem to be to America’s benefit. For we remain the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products.

And surely it is to our benefit to enlarge both the reserves and production of oil and gas in North America.

In “America’s New Oil Weapon” in National Review, Arthur Herman of the Hudson Institute urges the U.S. to take bold steps to increase supplies of oil and gas: relax the rules on drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; use as an economic weapon against OPEC the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; allow the export of U.S. oil to enable us to cope with OPEC cutbacks; and build the Keystone XL pipeline.

What Herman is urging is a new nationalism, a new way of thinking about international economics that puts the U.S. and its allies first and uses our economic leverage to advance national rather than global interests.

Something the GOP Congress might think about when Barack Obama asks it to surrender its right to amend trade treaties with fast track.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.