Former CIA chief: 'Oil dependence threatens US, Israel'

[peejay 327]

Former CIA chief: 'Oil dependence threatens US, Israel'

By MICHAL LANDO

NEW YORK

The case for reducing the United States' dependence on oil is most often argued by environmentalists concerned about global warming and ozone depletion. But a growing number of people are drawing what they consider to be a crucial link between oil and national security. They argue that America's reliance on oil is the number one security threat facing the country.

One figure who has emerged in this debate is co-chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger and former director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey, who spoke in New York this week at an event sponsored by the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank that seeks to define and promote America's interests in the Middle East. Woolsey argues that America's reliance on oil as the primary source of fuel is one of the greatest barriers to national security and threatens both the US and Israel.

"The way strategically over the long run to weaken the enemies of Israel, such as Ahmadinejad, is to weaken the role of oil," Woolsey said. "Oil makes it harder to avoid genocide in Darfur because the Sudanese have a deal with China, and it makes it harder to deal with Iran, because China and Iran have an oil deal."

The problem with reliance on oil is twofold, according to Woolsey who is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. The petroleum infrastructure is vulnerable to terrorist and environmental attacks, and the transfer of funds from oil have been used, and continue to be used, to fund terrorism or support totalitarian regimes.

"One of the ways to convince these regimes that their system won't work, is to convince them that they can't continue to just sit and pump."

The only way to do that, he argues, is by moving away from cars than run on petroleum. The US used 140 billion gallons of gas last year, and a little over 40 percent of oil consumption is used for cars and other light transportation.

Roughly two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves are in the greater Middle East. Demand is expected to increase by more than 50% in the next two decades from 78 million barrels per day (MBD) in 2002 to 118 MBD in 2025, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

"It will mean higher prices and potential supply disruptions and will put considerable leverage in the hands of governments in the greater Middle East," Woolsey said.

Woolsey pointed to the attack at Abquaiq earlier this year as an example of America's vulnerability. A well planned attack could take some six million barrels per day off the market sharply increasing petroleum prices and damaging the world economy, according to Woolsey.

"We have succeeded in constructing an international trading system for energy and everything else, that operates like a beautiful, fine, Swiss watch, and it works very well as long as there is no interference," Woolsey said.

An accident last summer in the Texas City refinery as well as hurricane damage in the Gulf, point out the potential infrastructure vulnerabilities.

"The transfer of funds from industrial countries to the Middle East is a source of enormous strength for them and particularly for autocracies, whether it be the Iranian government or Whahadi infrastructure," said Daniel Pipes director of the Middle East Forum. "Therefore cutting back on those transfers is of vital importance and high priority."

Though politicians across the political spectrum have long recognized that oil is a problem, not everyone agrees on how to solve it.

The Bush administration has largely focused on the supply side of the oil equation, trying to locate more oil reserves, according to Paul Roberts author of the book "The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World" They have not, however, expressed much interest in reducing demand.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

We can't lower consumption until we have viable alternatives that are affordable and available for the average consumer. In addition, people have to want to go this route. It won't matter if we have all the different methods in the world of getting off oil if people still insist on using it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I want a nuclear powered car.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

are you suggesting the government tell each of us what we can drive?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

We can't lower consumption until we have viable alternatives that are affordable and available for the average consumer. In addition, people have to want to go this route. It won't matter if we have all the different methods in the world of getting off oil if people still insist on using it.

ummm...how about setting higher fuel effeciency standards for auto makers for one? Invest in mass transit. Get cars that run on ethanol like Brazil has done. There are plenty of ways to reduce our dependency on oil.

[peejay 327]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

There have been a lot of administrations since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. It's not like this is something that popped up out of thin air. Most politicians since then were and are well aware of this fact...but hope they are out of office when the chickens finally come to roost and it is someone else's problem to deal with.

The American people are also to blame for being ignorant about something so important. Most are clueless about anything upstream of the gasoline nozzle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

There have been a lot of administrations since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. It's not like this is something that popped up out of thin air. Most politicians since then were and are well aware of this fact...but hope they are out of office when the chickens finally come to roost and it is someone else's problem to deal with.

The American people are also to blame for being ignorant about something so important. Most are clueless about anything upstream of the gasoline nozzle.

The Carter Administration did try to work towards reducing our consumption and foreign oil dependency.

As for the American Consumer - it's the attitude that guzzling gas is a right and a freedom...albeit with foreign oil.

[peejay 327]

Amen. Unfortunately, we let the market dictate our consumption of oil along with an Administration that has made no real attempt at lowering our consumption.

There have been a lot of administrations since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. It's not like this is something that popped up out of thin air. Most politicians since then were and are well aware of this fact...but hope they are out of office when the chickens finally come to roost and it is someone else's problem to deal with.

The American people are also to blame for being ignorant about something so important. Most are clueless about anything upstream of the gasoline nozzle.

The Carter Administration did try to work towards reducing our consumption and foreign oil dependency.

As for the American Consumer - it's the attitude that guzzling gas is a right and a freedom...albeit with foreign oil.

What did Clinton do about it? He was no better than any of the Republican presidents before him and after Jimmy Carter. As I said...out of sight...out of mind. When oil is cheap and plentiful there is absolutly no incentive to rock the boat.

You can bet the farm though...when the cheap oil fiesta party is over...the finger pointing and calls for head rolling will come on with a vengance.

I find it funny though that with all the uproar about "Iraq"...nobody realizes that the USA could give a sh!t less about the region except that sits above most of the world's remaining oil reserves. Cut off the Western industrialized nations from this oil for whatever reason and...it won't be a pretty scenario.

Edited November 13, 2006 by peejay

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

ummm...how about setting higher fuel effeciency standards for auto makers for one? Invest in mass transit. Get cars that run on ethanol like Brazil has done. There are plenty of ways to reduce our dependency on oil.

steven, do you really think ethanol will solve the issues? a 15% blend that decreases gas milage and increases overall fuel cost? (keep in mind that in brazil, it's not as expensive to raise the crop required for the alcohol).

[peejay 327]

ummm...how about setting higher fuel effeciency standards for auto makers for one? Invest in mass transit. Get cars that run on ethanol like Brazil has done. There are plenty of ways to reduce our dependency on oil.

steven, do you really think ethanol will solve the issues? a 15% blend that decreases gas milage and increases overall fuel cost? (keep in mind that in brazil, it's not as expensive to raise the crop required for the alcohol).

Living in Houston I can attest to that fact. I don't know the particulars, but we are mandated to use oxygenated fuels. My wife's Honda Civic gets 34-35 mpg (highway) on Houston gasoline with 10-15% methanol and it costs just as much as non-methanol 100% gasoline in other cities. When we are out of the city and gas up with 100% gasoline we get 38-39 mpg (highway).

So what about methanol? It still uses petroleum based fertilizers to grow crops, petroleum powered equipment to harvest, petroleum to refine into methanol, and petroleum to transport to market. It can't happen without petroleum. It isn't a substitute for petroleum, but is a way to consume less petroleum. It is not a cheaper alternative, nor is it a fuel that can replace the 20 million barrels of oil the USA uses every day.

America's energy dilemma is a lot more complex than cars with more mpg and growing methanol. The whole enchelada hinges on finding a replacement for the oil driven USA economy. And it looks pretty bleak right now, but hasn't hit critical mass. Any world events can make the chickens roost earlier than expected.

One thing is obvious though...the USA is not prepared for any long termed disruption of the 60% (12 million bbls.) that we import daily.

[dalegg 143]

I want a nuclear powered car.

[almaty 19]

i heard that since the oil embargo under nixon and not much has changed

[I'm Gone 60]

He's one of the neocons that got us involved in Iraq and pushing for attacking Iran. I don't not give a damn about Israel's national security and wish these boneheads would stop tying it to our national security.

Woolsey is on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

[mawilson 2,133]

ummm...how about setting higher fuel effeciency standards for auto makers for one? Invest in mass transit. Get cars that run on ethanol like Brazil has done. There are plenty of ways to reduce our dependency on oil.

Great idea but we don't have enough ethanol...