On 9/26/2010 12:34 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
> MG: I note that you now disingenuously omit any reference to the
> Saudis, whom you previously mentioned together with the Iranian
> monarch, as being somehow antagonistic to US oil interests.
Well, the Saudis declared an oil embargo on the United States in 1973. I would say that's antagonistic, wouldn't you?
At the same time, it's true that the Saudis at most times tend to be "doves" within OPEC. But that's a function of their population. Countries with high population-to-reserves ratios tend to be hawks, those with low population-to-reserves tend to be doves. The reason is that the latter countries expect to have lots of oil in the ground for many years to come, so they worry more about the long-term effect of high prices (i.e., high prices will eventually provoke a technological response that will one day render their remaining oil in the ground worthless). Saudi Arabia has very large reserves and moderate population, so it's a dove.
Believe it or not, even the mighty imperialist United States can't prevent its clients from pursuing their routine economic self-interest.
> I have not been able to to either confirm or refute your assertion
> about the Shah's purportedly aggressive pricing policy. If you can
> provide evidence, I'd stand corrected
This is a well-known story. I'll just paste a random quote from Wikipedia: "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told The New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."[6]
> your preposterous inference that it proves the divergent interests of
> Iran under the Shah and the US
The above quote indicates divergent interests, no? Again: The US can install all the clients it wants, but it can't make those clients ignore their routine economic self-interest.
> MG: I've looked up stentorian and, in all fairness, I don't think I've
> been blaring, blasting, booming, clamorous, clangorous, deafening,
> earsplitting, piercing, plangent,resounding, ringing, roaring,
> slam-bang, sonorous, loud, thundering, or thunderous throughout our
> exchanges .
Okay, I withdraw stentorian. You're not blaring, blasting, or ear-splitting.
SA