Israel SUCKS (The Gas Right Out Of Your Tank)

by Keith Johnson   

    The New Year kicked off with the highest January gas prices in history, due in large part to the tensions between the U.S. and Iran. According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States is roughly $3.38, nearly 30 cents higher than a year ago. It’s bound to get worse. This week, Bloomberg reported that oil was trading “near $100 in New York on concerns that Iran may respond to a European embargo on its crude exports by following through on threats to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping.”
    The oil market is largely driven by headlines, and soars every time the West shakes their fist at one of Israel’s enemies. That not only drives up the price you pay at the pump for a gallon of gasoline, but also affects the cost of every product and service that travels by way of land, air or sea.
    Sure, there are other factors that play into the price of oil—demand, speculation, taxes, environmental regulations, refinery capabilities, etc., etc. But for at least the last twenty years, war (and rumors of war) have been the major driving force.
    On February 19, 2008, former (and I might add deceased) Representative John Murtha (D-PA) stated, “Oil was $27 per barrel before the war in Iraq started. Today it’s $86 a barrel. Gas at the pump was $1.76 per gallon before the war in Iraq. Today it’s $3.02.”
    Of course the Iraq war—just like the one we’re now starting with Iran—would not have been waged had it not been for Israel, who’s had their crosshairs trained on both Muslim nations for many years. In 1996, Israeli dual citizens Douglas Feith and Richard Perle were both advisors to Israel’s Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu. During that time, the duo co-authored a policy paper, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. In it, they said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and that Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would all have to be overthrown or destabilized in order for Israel to be truly safe. Feith would later become the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense of Policy for the Bush administration. It was through Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) that the Israelis channelled faulty intelligence about Saddam’s so-called “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” These lies led the U.S. Congress to enact the Iraq War Resolution of 2002, which gave George W. Bush carte blanche to wage a bloody conflict that has since claimed the lives of over one million Iraqis and nearly 5,000 American troops.
    Now, new lies about Iran’s so-called “nuclear weapons program” are fueling that war, and Syria is also under attack based on lies that Assad is killing his own people. As for Lebanon and Saudi Arabia? It’s only a matter of time, baby!
    For decades, Israel has largely been responsible for the rise in petroleum prices. Writing for The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2003, Dr. Thomas R. Stauffer concluded that conflicts in the Middle East have cost the American taxpayer approximately $3 trillion. According to Stauffer, “The largest single element in the costs has been the series of six oil-supply crises since the end of World War II.”
    He goes on to say that, “the several earlier Mideast oil crises, in 1956 and 1967, actually had relatively little effect on the United States,” and it wouldn’t be until the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 that things would start spiraling out of control. That’s when the U.S. forked out almost $1 trillion dollars to supply Israel with arms and provide subsidies to countries willing to sign peace treaties with them, such as Egypt and Jordan. Stauffer writes, “Washington’s intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which cost the U.S. doubly: first, due to the oil shortfall, the US lost about $300 billion to $600 billion in GDP; and, second, the U.S. was saddled with another $450 billion in higher oil import costs.”
    A third factor added to the oil-related cost of the 1973 war was the U.S. created Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which was designed to insulate Israel and the U.S. against the wielding of a future Arab “oil weapon.” Stauffer writes, “It was destined to contain one billion barrels of oil, which could be released in the event of a supply crisis. To date the SPR, which still exists and is slowly being expanded, has cost $134 billion—since much of the oil was bought at high prices, and because the salvage value is relatively low. Thus, the 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than $900 billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion.”
    The next regional oil crisis was the Iranian revolution and the subsequent Iran-Iraq war. “The joint effect of the two crises cost the U.S. consumer $335 billion in terms of higher prices for imported oil,” writes Stauffer. “It also caused a rise in prices of domestic energy—oil, gas, and coal. These “knock-on” effects are not included, however, so that the figure of $335 billion is indeed a lower bound for the actual costs of those two, back-to-back crises. The total consumer cost is likely to have been more than double that figure.”
    Stauffer concludes by referencing the 1990/91 Gulf war, which he said proved to be a bargain in comparison to other regional conflicts, costing “American consumers approximately $80 billion in higher oil prices, including both imported and domestic oil, again excluding the resulting “knock-on” effects.”
    I guess that brings us up to date. So what does the future have in store for oil prices in the event that the U.S. and Israel continue to push Iran to the brink to ruin? Writing for 24/7 Wall Street, Douglas A. McIntyre reports, “The International Monetary Fund says the nations that would set sanctions against Iran’s oil exports will pay for their convictions with crude prices that could rise as much as 30%. Brent crude would be pushed to more than $140 a barrel. The shock of the increase could knock the global economic recovery, such as it is, off of its axis.”
    And in November 2011, the Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO)—the world’s largest bond investor—released a report that offers four possible scenarios that might likely occur if Iran’s energy sector is compromised:

Scenario 1: Exports minimally affected. Concerns would drive initial price response. The International Energy Agency (IEA) would likely make statements about willingness to meet any shortfall in supplies. Oil could spike initially to $130 to $140 per barrel and then settle in a higher range, around $120 to $125, in relatively short order as a premium (mostly a risk premium) becomes embedding into the market, at least for a while. The timing of the spike would depend on how much the market is taken by surprise and whether or not the strike is priced in ahead of time.

Scenario 2: Iranian exports cut off for one month. IEA would likely swing into action and Saudi Arabia could begin to offer more oil into market. In this case, we would expect prices could reach previous all-time highs of $145/bbl or even higher depending on issues with shipping. The IEA and Saudi Arabia can meet market needs, but the increase in uncertainty and the loss of spare capacity would affect pricing. In this case, after a few months, we would expect prices could fall back to $130 to $135/bbl range.

Scenario 3: Iranian exports are lost for half a year. This is where the potential outcomes get quite dicey. We think oil prices could probably rally and average $150 for the six months, with notable spikes above that level. The IEA would likely release oil steadily, but consumption will need to take a hit from prices and slower economic activity. Once Iranian crude oil returns to the market and the environment stabilizes, oil would likely return to around $110/bbl or even lower depending on global strength at the time.

Scenario 4: Greater loss of production from around the region, either through subsequent Iranian response or due to lack of ability to move oil through Straits of Hormuz. This is the Armageddon scenario in which oil prices could soar, significantly constraining global growth. Forecasting prices in the prior scenarios is dangerous enough. So, we won’t even begin to forecast a cap or target price in this final Doomsday scenario.

    No matter how you look at it, the U.S. consumer is destined for hard times if this dangerous game is allowed to continue.
    As for Israel—they’ll do just fine no matter what. While Americans painfully adjust to price increases brought on by $5 to $10 per gallon gasoline, the Israelis will find a negligible decrease in their standard of living. Thanks to a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the United States government is obligated to satisfy all of Israel’s oil needs in the event of crisis, even if it causes domestic shortages to the American people. This little known legislation is renewed every five years, and commits $3 billion taxpayer dollars to maintain a strategic U.S. reserve for Israel. The U.S. government also guarantees delivery of oil in U.S. tankers if commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the USA to Israel.
    Yeah, I know…Doesn’t that just SUCK!!!!!

Published in: on January 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm  Comments (6)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Yeah it sucks….big time! Israel is successfully laying a quilt trip on Christian America that we need to defend her. If you’re going to play the religious card folks… The Book……Israel is destined to be hated and despised until the birth of a new age when she will admit her failings and be reconciled. As an American I am tired of war and hearing about Israel’s enemies. Its time to let her pay her own way and stop laying her crimes at our doorstep for defense and payment.

  2. Isreal is the true enemy of all humanity.Their philoshohy perades everything.From greedy economics to distorted Christanity,ugly culture,and crass design.In war they fight to the finish,and are willing to take millions with them.Since the Federeal Reserve Act of 1913,they own US!WW1-WW2,The Cold War(When Stalin kicked the Jews out of his inner circle after 45)was all about them.Every person,with humanity must defy and fight them without compromise or fear.To endorse them in any way is slavery.

  3. […] Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Lasă un comentariu […]

  4. One amazing thing about the SOTU speech was Obama scolding Iran to submit or else. Someone tell him he was selected as the President of the United States, not King of the World. He seems grandiose in his globalist ambitions while pathetically weak domestically.

    Mumbles about getting around to appoint a commission to maybe study the financial crime tsunami and asking CEOs won’t they pretty please consider creating jobs here. Meanwhile he commits us to invading entire continents and lets war profiteering continue to drain at least a trillion dollars a year out of the economy – not even beginning to count what war with Iran would cost, since no one can predict the cost of WWIII, and yet another “oops” don’t cut it.

    His platitudes about being for the folks looked like roadkill on the internationalists’ freeway.

    Thanks for the reminder on the price of gas before the Iraq war. I remember the pressure building on the public to accept it, and one of the rationalizations was that if we just went in and kicked butt the price of oil would go back DOWN.

  5. On January 17, 2012 – Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, head of the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) planing department, told reporters in Jerusalem that once Iran poseses nuclear arsenal, it will make hard for Israel to defeat Hamas and Hizbullah.
    ”If we are forced to do things in Gaza or in Lebanon – under the Iranian nuclear umbrella it might be different,” said Amir Eshel.
    Earlier, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs Moshe Yaalon slammed the Obama administration for not taking military action against Islamic Republic. Obama, Yaalon indicated, is concerned that an armed conflict with Iran could cost him a second term in the White House.
    Eshel also expressed his fears that a regime change in Damascus will be bad news for Israel as Syria’s “huge stockpile of chemical weapons” could reach Hizbullah.
    Amir Ethel’s remarks have infuriated Benji Netanyahu and his warmongering ministers. Benji is trying to override Israeli Chief of Staff Gen. Benny Gantz’s choice of Ethel as the new Chief of Air Force. Benji wants his military secretary, Maj. Gen. Yochanan Locker to head the Air Force. According to some senior military officials, both Ethel and Locker agree with Gantz that an Israeli military attack on Iran will be suicidal for Israel. They prefer American boots in Iran.
    Last Wednesday, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak backed down from his earlier war rhetoric by claiming on Israel’s Army Radio that any attack on Iran is “very far off”, adding “we have not made any decision to do this”. Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported on January 18 that “Israel believes Iran itself has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb”.
    This puts the Zionist regime in line with senior US policy and intelligence officials – like Israel-Firsters Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who have tenaciously held to the “Iran-has-not-yet-decided” judgment since it was promulgated unanimously by the 16 US intelligence agencies (NIE) in November 2007 which reported: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program“.
    On January 8, while appearing on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer, Panetta made the politically wrong assertion that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb. This sent hell loose in Israel and its chestbeating American Ziocons. They feared that Obama administration was steering toward some sort of ‘coexistence’ dialogue with Iranian leaders. This did not sit well in Israel. Three days after Panetta’s statement, Mossad’s assassins struct in Tehran and killed Iran’s senior nuclear scientist, Dr. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast .
    Obama administration’s reaction to the latest assassination came as a surprise to Israel. On January 12, Obama called Benji on phone, signaling not only his displeasure with the murder of Roshan but annoyance over what appeared to be an Israeli strategy to ratchet up tensions with Iran. Washington slapped Tel Aviv by canceling large-scale joint US-Israeli military exercises planned for this spring without any cogent explanation.
    Last week, Obama sent his military boss, Gen. Martin Dempsey, to Tel Aviv to please his Jewish campaign funders. Ray McGovern, former US military intelligence officer and CIA analyst, says that it’s hard to trust Israeli intentions. “Dempsey’s visit bears close watching to see if the alteration in Israeli rhetoric is durable and reflected on the ground. In the past, Israel’s Likud leaders have played hardball with American leaders, often by enlisting the help of their influential allies in the United States. If “regime change” remains the real priority, then Israeli leaders won’t be likely to warm to the idea of negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program“.

  6. i say to people all over the USA take your money out of the banks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 522 other followers

%d bloggers like this: