And, could Iran’s announcements regarding an interest in nuclear technology be a ploy?
According to this New Yorker article by James Surowiecki, it sure seems possible. Basically, any threat of conflict in the Middle East spooks the oil markets. Fearing production slowdowns, petroleum purchasers begin purchasing and storing oil, driving up the price of oil. Countries that profit from oil export, generally countries with leaders that support anti-American terrorism, profit.
So let’s say that you are a financially mis-managed Iran, you are a bit short on the investment capital you need to invest in nuclear bomb technology. What do you do? Easy. Just announce that you’re still investing in the enrichment of uranium. The obvious US response is to announce: “We’re not afraid to bomb you.” Oil prices go up (or remain artificially high), and you now have more investment capital to really build a bomb. And you can even send some road-side bomb technology to your neighbors to the west, just to keep the conflict over there going, and to prevent the US from really following through on its threat to you.
While this is all guesswork, doesn’t it seem a bit curious that from time to time, Iran makes these public announcments about its nuclear ambitions. Is there any other benefit to making such announcements for Iran? What, they’re crazy? Like a fox, maybe.
Hold on just a minute there. Here is the US Energy Information Agency’s list of the top fifteen oil exporting nations, as of 2005:
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Norway
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Nigeria
Kuwait
Venezuela
Algeria
Mexico
Libya
Iraq
Angola
Kazakhstan
Qatar
I don’t see how anyone could realistically call any of these, other than perhaps Iran and Libya, “countries with leaders that support anti-American terrorism”. I don’t think you can quite call whatever Venzuela’s relationship with Iran is “support for terrorism” unless one is one of the “with us or against us” crowd. And as much terror as lutefisk may strike into the hearts of people, I don’t think Norway holds that much ill will towards us.
Concerning the OP’s central premise: sorry, I don’t buy it, at least not as a primary motivation for Iran’s behavior. I think, first of all, that if Iran is in fact intent on developing nuclear weapons, any struggle in this endeavor has more to do with coming to grips with the technology involved than any shortage of money. Secondly, has everyone completely forgotten the immense antipathy with which certain elements of the Iranian government hold the US for having installed the despot who led it before the admittedly likewise rather despotic Ayatollahs? It’s a point of national pride to stand up to the US and its diktat. That seems reason enough for its responses on the nuclear issue, without dragging an economic conspiracy into the mix.
I’m open to be convinced otherwise, however. Somebody show some evidence that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are being held back mainly through lack of financing, and I’ll listen.
Sorry for the confusion, but there are 2 discussions that I envisioned. The first is basically a chance to refute the Surowiecki article. I think that the article is quite valid. Recent US foreign policy has indeed fallen victim to the law of unintended consequences. Clearly, the threat of more conflict in the middle east increases oil profits. So, the mere threat of US aggression helps inflate the price of oil. Especially since we’ve already proven that we will send an army over there. At the very least, Iran profits and Ahmedinejad stays in power longer.
Part II: Knowing that aggressive US posturing miraculously seems to lead to more profit, Ahmedinejad may, from time to time, create his own “conflict”. Why wouldn’t he? Make a few vague threats, and reiterate your goal to increase your nuclear capabilities. Maybe even hold a conference denying the Holocaust. Certainly deny that you want to make weapons. You don’t want the rest of the world to rally behind the US. From his perspective, it looks like a shrewd tactical move.
Perhaps my connection to nuclear investment was a stretch. But at the very least, a government that has a goal of producing nuclear weapons has a better chance the longer that it is power. And bigger revenues allow it to stay in power longer.