Oil traders view war with Iran as ‘inevitable.’
On Friday, oil prices hit a record $95.93 a barrel. One “veteran energy trader at a U.S. hedge fund” told The Washington Post that part of the reason prices are so high is because “traders have become convinced that military conflict between the United States and Iran is inevitable.” He added, “People react to perceptions of what will happen. That’s not idle speculation.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
40 Responses to “Oil traders view war with Iran as ‘inevitable.’”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
And they are all singing Bomb Bomb Iran, in 4 part harmony!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmGWB + Oil profits = Inevitable war.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pmNice legacy, Bushie.
Well, duh. Do you think Saudi Arabia is suddenly going to start fighting its own wars for a change?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHeck, if you can get the price up that high just by talking about bombing Iran, why would you ever need to actually do it? This Administration has a license (and a bully pulpit) to print themselves and their buddies a whole bunch of free money for another 14 months.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“Thats not idle speculation”
No, that’s profitable speculation….
November 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“People react to perceptions of what will happen. That’s not idle speculation.â€
No - that’s just the definition of speculation.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI read the article and Iran is barely mentioned….
November 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmBush: We need to bomb Iran.
Oilman: Ooooh!! I love it when you talk dirty, Georgie!!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmYeap, need to get those oil prices in the 3 figure range before checking out….
Thanx dem congress,…stupid ass’s
November 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmconsidering what’s going on in pakistan, it would seem a most unfortunate time to attack another muslim country.
but, i’m sure the puppetmaster thinks otherwise…
November 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI agree Keltoi, a variety of rationals were thrown about in the article. Iran is one of many. It doesn’t add credence to attacking Iran but doesn’t fixate on Iran either.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmPakistan is the next problem spot. Not imaginary, but real with real nukes and a real threat to the stability of the region.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThe “leftists” and “secular progressives” (remember when secular authority was considered more legitimate than fanatic faith in a 2,000 year old novel) are forcing the just and wonderful Bushco into an unwanted war with the innocents of Iran. sarc off
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmExxon-Mobil is hoping for $500.00 per barrel. They see $$$ windfall profits as high as the sky.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThe market knows.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmDumb Question: What happens to the economy as the price of oil goes up ? And if we add in the weakening dollar ?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmPeak oil is here. It is not going away. It will only get worse.
Imagine what the US could do with the 1/2 trillion dollars we have wasted in our lame invasion of Iraq. Do you suppose we could have made great strides in finding alternatives to fossill fuel? You bet we could.
IMHO this is the time period that historians will look back upon and point to where we ignored the oil crisis and then squandered our opportunity of energy independence.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmPeak oil is here. It is not going away. It will only get worse.
Comment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
High oil prices have nothing to do with shrinking supply, I believe. There’s still plenty of dead dinosaur to be found.
What’s driving $93/barrel oil is greed. Remember that Exxon/Mobil and Chevron and all the companies charging $3.26 per gallon at the pump are often the same companies receiving the $93/barrel prices to extract it from Ecuador and Nigeria and elsewhere. They profit on both ends.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmExxon-Mobil is hoping for $500.00 per barrel. They see $$$ windfall profits as high as the sky.
Comment by Uncle Ho
True, but way before that we will have gas rationing. The military and the feds get the first allocations, then whatever is left will ‘trickle down’ to the rest of us. The government created the problem by not anticipating the crisis, then they get first shot at the oil when the crisis has developed.
Somehow, that doesn’t sound fair to me.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:10 pmIt would not surprise me if the United States makes an air strike against Iran before January 20, 2009. What WILL surprise me is if we are told the real reason behind it. We will be given justification along the lines of “we had to stop them from building nukes,” or “we had to stop them from aiding the Shia in Iraq.” We’ll NEVER hear “we had to do it for the oil.”
November 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmthe dollar is worth less and less as we speak Yet gas prices are skyrocketing! pretty soon everybody and their mother will walk out on the dollar so bring on the fire! I want to see this evil nation burn I can’t wait! Nuke the entire Bush family! The Crawford Ranch. I want to see Barbara Bush running around like a plucked beat up hen without shelter! Limping, torn and hopeless!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmDumb Question: What happens to the economy as the price of oil goes up ? And if we add in the weakening dollar ?
Comment by MapleStreet — November 5, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Remember the 70’s? Fun decade. It brought us gas lines, gas rationing, the 55 mph speed limit on freeways to conserve fuel, and skyrocketing prices on practically everything because of transportation costs. Any consumer goods that had to be trucked somewhere cost more.
Factor in the weakening dollar, along with creditor nations such as China, and you basically will have the world leading us by the nose economically.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmStatRat; maybe we’d all had better invest in a horse and buggy. sarc off
November 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pmPakistan is the next problem spot. Not imaginary, but real with real nukes and a real threat to the stability of the region.
Comment by hellinabucket — November 5, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Boy howdy. That situation looks dire indeed. Why is Bhutto so silent on this? Is she afraid of arrest or complict in the crackdown or what? Pakistan rivals China for the opacity of its politics, but throw in religious fanaticism just for fun.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmDumb Question: What happens to the economy as the price of oil goes up ? And if we add in the weakening dollar ?
Comment by MapleStreet — November 5, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Remember the 70’s? Fun decade. It brought us gas lines, gas rationing, the 55 mph speed limit on freeways to conserve fuel, and skyrocketing prices on practically everything because of transportation costs. Any consumer goods that had to be trucked somewhere cost more.
Factor in the weakening dollar, along with creditor nations such as China, and you basically will have the world leading us by the nose economically.
Comment by missmolly — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
The weird thing is, and this is pointed out in the article, even with oil at historic highs, the economic pain isn’t commensurate. Yet. The dollar weakening is almost more troubling than oil prices.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pmComment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Naw, dumping a lot of depleted uranium is the best use for haf a trillion dollars I can think of. To hell with S-CHIP, healthcare for vets, our grandchildren not being economically indebted to the Chinese and the middle class. The have and have mores…..that’s what we should be investing in.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmWhy is Bhutto silent? Why is Bush silent? Bhutto doesn’t answer to me. Bush does, even if he doesn’t believe so he does and he is scarily quiet about his friend in fighting terror is cutting off freedoms we say we believe in and are fighting for in Iraq. If people in this country would take notice of the decay of Pakistan and the money we shovel at them there would be harsher words towards our president than what is already stated.
Pakistan could soon become AQ’s target (if it already hasn’t).
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe market knows.
The modern market is a marvelous crystal ball for global politics. The Republicans may have failed at everything else, but at least they perfected time travel.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt took about five years for the embargo of 73 to bring about “stagflation”. The real costs, of the present crisis, will show up just in time to blame our next, Democratic, administration. However, we are showing concern for the wrong issue.
There are technologies, in place and under development, to deal with fuel shortages. The real issue is, “what are we gonna do when plastics, and other petroleum derived commodities, are priced out of our reach”?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWhy is Bhutto silent? Why is Bush silent? Bhutto doesn’t answer to me.
Pakistan could soon become AQ’s target (if it already hasn’t).
Comment by hellinabucket — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Well, Pakistan is HER country, I would think she would have something to say. By postphoning the elections, Mush has denied her the ability to become PM. Flawed as she is, she seems like the best hope for democracy in Pakistan.
And I agree, if I were AQ, Pakistan looks like the best host body to infect - they seem to run Waziristan already.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pmThe weird thing is, and this is pointed out in the article, even with oil at historic highs, the economic pain isn’t commensurate. Yet. The dollar weakening is almost more troubling than oil prices.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Tell WORKING Americans filling up at the pump that the pain isn’t there, you sick little hack!
Why do you think the dollar is weakening? What currency do you believe oil is traded in?
You wingnuts are some of the dumbest people on the planet! Just STFU and put the planet out of the misery of having to constantly listen to your whining and put up with your failures!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHigh oil prices have nothing to do with shrinking supply, I believe. There’s still plenty of dead dinosaur to be found.
Comment by toasterhead
Of course greed has an impact on overall prices, but not really in this case. Oil is a finite resouce, and there will always be some oil in the ground from those dead dinosaurs. The problem is it will cost more to extract and process the remaining oil. That’s what peak oil is all about. We know there is oil left, but it costs too much to bring it to market. The oil companies couldn’t sell enough gas to justify drilling for more. Some folks could spend $200.00 a gallon, but not enough to create an ongoing supply of customers.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmComment by republicans hate facts — November 5, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
That, of course, is the root of the problem. Neocons refuse to even consider the thought that their policies are causing great harm. In their twisted minds everything bad derives from “libruls” like Al Gore. They will get very dangerous when we overthrow the Christofacists.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmA whole lotta this can be laid at your Dear Leader’s door, Keltoi.
Oil was $22/barrel when Bush attacked and occupied Iraq. If he truly gave a damn about the American people, he never would have done something so colossally STUPID.
Nope. All he and his pals care about is the money to be made from this war - and boy, are they rakin’ it in!!
And We the People are getting screwed.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmStatRat; maybe we’d all had better invest in a horse and buggy. sarc off
Comment by Uncle Ho
That is not as ridiculous as it seems. We have been exploiting the same resource with pretty much the same technology for +/- 100 years. Sure some advances in radar, sonar and stuff, but not enough to take us out of this inevitable reality: Oil is finite. there is only so much there and only so much we can get to. We know we need to change course and develop an alternative, but where is the incentive to business?
I’m just glad I grew up on a horse ranch in Arizona.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pmA whole lotta this can be laid at your Dear Leader’s door, Keltoi.
Oil was $22/barrel when Bush attacked and occupied Iraq. If he truly gave a damn about the American people, he never would have done something so colossally STUPID.
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 5, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Hm. In the alternative reality where Saddam is still in power, what do you think oil is going for? The invaision was almost 5 years ago and LOTs of other things have happened that affect the price. The article in the WaPo made scant mention of Iraq as being part of the problem.
I’ll grant you, the failure to bring security to Iraq is not helping world oil markets, but the US pulling out and letting the country become even more insecure wouldn’t help either.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOPEC is blaming speculators for high prices and the speculators are blaming the rhetoric coming from casablanca. CERA blames geopolitics.
I try to keep up with the investment speculators, such as with this site: http://www.financialsense.com and have seen speculation of oil up to as high as $1,000 a barrel in the next 10-15 years.
I am thinking of opening an oil change facility just so I can hoarde the drained oil =)
November 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pmeven with oil at historic highs, the economic pain isn’t commensurate. Yet. The dollar weakening is almost more troubling than oil prices.
#25 - Keltoi
This is the thing I find very troubling. The coyote has run off the cliff and temporarily stationary. But you know in 2 seconds he will plummet to earth. (Or to put it in terms a conservative would agree to: In a lot of ways this reminds me of the end of the Clinton presidency when NASDAQ had inflated and you’re just waiting for the bubble to burst).
BTW - Totally OT - the name Keltoi - by any chance is that the past tense of a northen European verb ?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI’ll grant you, the failure to bring security to Iraq is not helping world oil markets, but the US pulling out and letting the country become even more insecure wouldn’t help either.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Ummm…
Are you making the argument that providing arms to all factions in a civil war, while pursuing military action against criminals, is making Iraq more secure?
Do you understand the difference between a military and criminal entity?
Do you think that confirming the worst fears of those who don’t share our philosophies is helping anything?
Do you think we will ever regain the trust, and respect, of foreign nations while pursuing a policy of naked aggression?
Are you still buying the line that we can overthrow a foreign government without the invitation of the citizenry? (Or legitimate, demonstrable, threat to our security.)
Are you not: shocked, disgusted, dismayed and angered that Gaddafi’s (as an example) Libya is viewed as a “stabilizing influence” while the United States is reviled?
It’s not likely we will ever regain our former place in the World Community. So long as there are fools who can’t, or won’t, accept the fact that Bushco has turned us into a criminal nation; we will continue to suffer from the justified contempt in which we are held.
The world can’t, and won’t, accept the existence of bullies. If we continue down the path, set by the neocons, we deserve to be destroyed. And, indeed, we shall be destroyed, like all failed states, by the greed and hubris that we perpetuate from within.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmBTW - Totally OT - the name Keltoi - by any chance is that the past tense of a northen European verb ?
Comment by MapleStreet — November 5, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
No, it is what the Ancient Greeks called the Celts. I am of Irish descent.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pm