[alokin]

if the US would begin a new war, maybe Iran, and the oil producing nations which don't like America would say: "we don't deliver oil as long as you're attacking other nations", what would happen?
Would the US still be able to fight with the delivery of their allies?
Is such a scenario realistic?

[jlw61]

if the US would begin a new war, maybe Iran, and the oil producing nations which don't like America would say: "we don't deliver oil as long as you're attacking other nations", what would happen?
Would the US still be able to fight with the delivery of their allies?
Is such a scenario realistic?

First, I am not even well informed on the Middle East politics but I seem to recall that Iran is made up mostly of one sect of Muslim while Saudi Arabia and other countries are controlled by different type(s). So depending on how the other ME OPEC nations feel about Iran, which may not be in Iran's favor, will depend on how they react.

However, do you REALLY think that GWB gives a flying frack what ANYONE thinks? Would he not then have ample reason to attack anyone who tried to embargo the US? Would he not then begin the fulfillment of the extreme-Christian belief that Revelations is now upon us?

God's Will be done! Christ and no quarter!

I sometimes make myself ill looking at these scenarios, so I try not to dwell on them.

[Fishman]

jlw, you are already ill, Bush derangement syndrome

We would buy it off the open market, Europe would buy forom the states embargoing the US, we would buy from the remaining sellers.

[Kaj]

It seems that embargoes against rich nations are hard to maintain. It would probably only take one or two countries to give in to the temptation of huge speculation-driven profit for them to collapse, as in the 1970s.

[evilgenius]

Going to war with little nations that have no importance other than something vague and possible in the future is one thing, invading Iran, which is the Russian proxy in the region, is entirely something else. It is bad enough that it has come to this because the power structure in the US has consistently refused to back high speed rail, large scale wind and solar and to force sensible vehicle mileage standards. Continuing with more of the same will result in a kind of national suicide, a thing which the fiasco in Iraq and the blame pointing everywhere but at the people's desires themselves proves is possible.

[Schadenfreude]

[align=center][/align]

Controlling Iraq’s oil has historically been a vital factor in America’s involvement in Iraq and was always a crucial element of the Bush administration’s plans for the post-Saddam era. Of course, that’s not how the war was sold to the American people. A few months before the invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that the looming war had “nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.” The war was necessary, its planners claimed, because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and, left unchecked, he would unleash weapons of mass destruction on the West.

In July 2006, Gary King, the CEO of the Dubai exchange, told me that the emergence of the exchange and the new futures contract indicates that the Persian Gulf is “the center of the world’s biggest hydrocarbon province. Most of the growth in oil consumption is in Asia-Pacific. So it’s a natural shift in gravity. Our timing is very opportune to be in that center of gravity.”

This change cannot be stopped or ignored. In today’s multi-polar world, economic interests, not military force, predominate. “It used to be that the side with the most guns would win,” says G.I. Wilson, a recently retired Marine Corps colonel, who has written extensively on terrorism and asymmetric warfare and spent 15 months fighting in Iraq. Today, says Wilson, the side “with the most guns goes bankrupt.”

[pana_burda]

Is such a scenario realistic?

Emmm ...... how do you spell "Venezuela" if not reliable OIL up to the empire?