Tracing an Iran Oil Blockade Meme

On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don't say where they got the idea.

The Journal:

The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime's survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.

Here was Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar:

Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion's initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran.

Sound familiar?

(Bar led a closed session at the Herzliya conference in January that brought together US and Israeli intelligence analysts to discuss the December U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. You can find more of his writings here).

More recently, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert reportedly proposed the blockade idea in a meeting with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, as noted by Judah Grunstein.

On its face while not as overtly militaristic a proposal as air strikes, which some hawks advocate, such a blockade may constitute the kind of provocation that would force international conflict just the same -- which may be some of its proponents' intention. (It may also constitute an act of war.) Worth observing how the blockade idea has worked its way into Washington's public policy discourse, and paying attention to see if becomes a more frequent talking point in right leaning national security circles in coming months.

Comments

The WSJ's staff is dominated by NeoCon(e.g. Zionists) that want Israel to supreme in the middle east. Any action against Iran would result in the price of oil going to $300 and gasoline to $9. The American public would not sacrifice this for Israel(Israel has no oil).

Posted by: Charles on 05/30/08 at 7:32 AM Respond

I believe that a blockade is technically an act of war, no?

Posted by: denis on 05/30/08 at 8:06 AM Respond

Naval blockade, eh? Otherwise it would just be the United States taking action against foreign shipping which would be a violation of freedom of navigation, a topic that we take very seriously and normally defend against all challenges. In order to avoid undercutting our own claims that maritime navigation is a right of every state we would have to get approval of the security council. I doubt that China would support action that wold force fuel prices upward, and while Russia might benefit economically, I expect they would see more benefit in supporting their Asian neighbors against the US.

Posted by: Caitlyn on 05/30/08 at 8:09 AM Respond

A naval blockade IS an act of war, and would be illegal without a UN authorization -- and Iran is nearing gasoline self-sufficiency anyway, not to mention the smuggling that could easily replace the blocked gas.

The people who suggest these things don't care if they would work -- they simply want to spark a war between the US and Iran for their own benefit, just as they pushed for a war on Iraq.

Posted by: hass on 05/30/08 at 8:44 AM Respond

A "naval blockade" can easily generate a "Tonkin Gulf" incident, real or imagined, which would IMMEDIATELY result in armed attack against Iranian military assets, full stop. Let's not deceive ourselves about any "alternative to bombing" here, please!

Posted by: barrisj on 05/30/08 at 10:28 AM Respond

Note that the media's characterization of the recent IAEA report was a bunch of LIES too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/30/iraq.iran

Posted by: hass on 05/30/08 at 10:38 AM Respond

Yes, a blockade is an act of war. That's why the Israelis attacked preemptively in 1967 when the Arab countries blockaded the ports of Eilat.

Posted by: Jaybird on 06/17/08 at 9:41 AM Respond

Of course a blockade is an act of war. What will the USA do if a ship approaches and refuses to stop as it heads to an Iranian port? Shoot? Court a collision? Then sue the nation of the ship even though we had no right to blockade?
We have not yet really tried serious diplomacy. The AIPAC material is full of half truths and outright lies. We must remember that there are many viewpoints in Israel and AIPAC represents LESS THAN A MAJORITY of the Jewish people (see Nicholas Kristov in the NYT last Sunday.
I am one of many Democrats who have given money to candidates now supposedly signing on to this resolution. We supported those candidates because we believe that we can work diplomatically with Iran for common goals. Iran brokered the current cease fire in Iraq when El Maliki went to Tehran to ask for help. They can be allies. We must continue the inspections but we must listen when our own NIE says that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. This is a transparent march toward war, demonizing Iran just the way Iraq was demonized. WE MUST RESIST THIS FOOLISH POLICY AND THOSE WHO INITIATED IT.

Posted by: Stephen Chinlund on 06/23/08 at 7:14 PM Respond