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.![]()



10Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks





Reply With Quote
