Response to Mansoor: Iran should be seen as a global problem, not just ours

A friend of the blog who can’t allow his name to be used responds to last week’s post by Peter Mansoor. Interestingly, he disagrees on the role of U.S. interests, but comes to a similar conclusion:

Call me Rosy, but I’m not seeing this quite as bad as you paint (apologies to Jessica Rabbit). Should the Iranians attempt to close the strait, they will face an international swarm of their own. Last time I checked, the U.S in recent history has ranged between 10% and 23% of petroleum imports from the Gulf (lower than other interested actors), but even this doesn’t explain what is happening downstream of refineries/cracking plants as a significant percentage is blended with additives to achieve viscosity, octane, zinc levels, corrosion targets, and total base numbers to meet unique applications (which my company and a panorama of others export). Major worldwide shippers use OUR marine lubricants. Point: our imports include our exported, refined products, from specialized lubricants to transmission fluid, hydraulic oils, greases, and sulfur fuels.

It is natural for us to see this potential development as a U.S. crisis, but it would be a more pressing global issue and serve to orchestrate a multilateral response. The Iranians need gasoline and other products too, and they would face an internal crisis alongside an international cudgel. Reaction would be swift for precisely the implications you cite. I see no chance that Iran — as we know it — could survive such an effort for any significant period of time. The Saudis would certainly sponsor foreign remedies for Persian perfidy (hmmm, almost sounds like an NDU war game title).

We are deeply in the realm of speculation here, but I am hard-pressed to imagine the U.S. screaming in pain before other nations demand a Persian parking lot. I fear that time will tell.”

But Kenneth Weisbrode, no historical slouch himself, says we should all calm the hell down.