Thread: Syria

I think all these calls that the US is responsible for just about anything are not that wise, there are other influential players around.

Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US would happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US would happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

There is quite little oil in Syria and the clashes make it even more difficult to transport it. I am sure that oil is not the main reason. The main aim is possibly, China, but Russia will be before that.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Good point, Crocodile. On the other hand, you can argue that the US would happily buy Syrian oil if the regime were totally changed -- thus, petro-politics still come into play even though the US is not currently buying from Syria.

I see your point. I think you can relatively safely assume the Syrian oil have been finding its way to the US consumers through the middlemen. Would you, then, based on that assumption, start arguing the war-proponents in the US are the end consumers (who want the oil for cheaper) and the peace-proponents are the middlemen (who enjoy the present situation and would lose their profits otherwise)? Hopefully, not.

I think when you start considering the 'Arab spring' through the prism of the oil business, you have to build some boundaries. Of which the first and the foremost is the direct involvement. The US is getting their oil from another markets which are well-established. There's little economic point to rattle those markets as it might have some unpredictable consequences. Increase the consumption from Syria and reduce the consumption from Canada, lots of businesses would be affected. Increase the total consumption, what would happen to those 'eco-friendly initiatives' investments and businesses? The markets like stability, only those in the disadvantaged situation would risk the change. So, now tell me, which market is more volatile European or the US's? Europe is the absolutely dominant direct consumer in both cases, it makes business sense to invest in a military intervention to force the business counterpart to reduce the price right now, lower the expenses, and get out of the crisis.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think when you start considering the 'Arab spring' through the prism of the oil business, you have to build some boundaries. Of which the first and the foremost is the direct involvement. The US is getting their oil from another markets which are well-established. There's little economic point to rattle those markets as it might have some unpredictable consequences.

You talk of economics, but look at this from the political point of view. You have your oil, but you want to make sure your potential adversary (China) won't get any oil too. China needs oil as well and US tries very hard to strip China from it.

We're speaking about another cold war where one side tries to deny the resources from the opponent.