Iran, Iran...

The United States should continue to pressure Iran to put an end to its nuclear program by imposing tougher sanctions, including an embargo on petroleum oil, if necessary.

 While Iran is one of the world’s leading oil producers and sanctions which would lead to Americans losing oil supplies from Iran, the United States needs to take a strong stand against nuclear production in Iran, as well as other countries such as North Korea. Despite the potential problems from losing Iran’s oil, the very real implications and possible devastation resulting from an Iranian nuclear program far outweigh the financial effects due to the lack of Iran’s oil.

 While losing that oil supply poses financial problems and possible higher gas prices for Americans, those could be offset by using oil from other counties and reserves. The United States could dip into its own reserves in a time of crisis if the Iranian sanctions and possible embargo were to lead to such a crisis. Even if the United States could not make up for the missing supply by using domestic oil, it could still import oil from other foreign countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, to offset the amounts it would no longer purchase from Iran.

The fact that the European Union is taking a similar stance on sanctioning Iran for its nuclear actions further supports the need for the United States to impose higher sanctions, and an embargo if Iran continues to work on nuclear projects after the United States imposes the sanctions. After the devastation and destruction suffered in Japan after the nuclear power plant incident in 2011, nuclear consequences are readily known to the world. Japan is still recovering from that event, and it was an event merely from a power plant, not nuclear weapons which Iran may be developing. The simple possibility that they could be developing nuclear weapons, or nuclear projects having the same amount of nuclear energy, rightfully does put the United States and Europe on guard. That type and amount of nuclear power could be devastating to the entire planet, and it is simply not worth the risk to let Iran continue such a project. Sanctions and an embargo should be used before launching any kind of attack on Iran because it is much safer, and it allows for more times to possibly have talks with Iran. The main concern with continuing to impose higher sanctions and an embargo would be the possibility that it would actually help Iran financially by causing their oil prices to increase with countries eventually purchasing oil from them. Nonetheless, the United States and European Union should continue to impose sanctions because at this point it is the safest and least costly route. It would be reckless to launch an attack that may lead to the exact type of devastation the United States wants to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from causing.

The author’s blog claims that Obama is not to blame for rising gas prices in America, and Republicans are incorrectly blaming Obama as a way to boost their presidential campaigns. I believe the author intended his audience to be liberals and environmentalists since he negatively criticizes Republicans and dismisses their arguments, sometimes without much evidence. The author seems like a credible source for a liberal blog since he explains the issues in the manner geared to liberal readers while supporting them with evidence for the most part. However, I found him to be less credible on the points where he simply stated Republicans were in it for the money without fully addressing their arguments.

The author claims that there are four prominent “lies” that Republicans are proclaiming regarding Obama and the rising gas prices. First, the author claimed that Republicans are inaccurately placing the blame for gas prices on Obama when the real problem is the fact that the United States does not have enough oil itself and the rise in gas prices is a result of issues between Saudi Arabia and China. To make this point the author points out how many barrels of oil the U.S. produces itself and how much it gets from the largest producer, Saudi Arabia. He further states that the most logical explanation for the gas prices comes from the fact that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil and China is the most desperate consumer, meaning that Saudi Arabia can keep rising the prices because China must, and will, purchase oil at whatever price Saudi Arabia sells it at. I think the author’s explanation is very logical and pints to specific evidence, including numerical evidence of barrels produced. Additionally, I think it makes sense how China’s demand can have such an effect on gas prices worldwide, especially since Saudi Arabia is such a dominant seller.

Second, the author claims that Republicans are incorrect in stating that Obama has no energy plan, and he quotes Obama recently proclaiming his energy plans to use other forms of energy to make the U.S. self-sufficient. While the author does have evidence in the quote by Obama stating his policy and Bloomberg stating America is the closest it has been to energy self-sufficiency in nearly twenty years, I did not find that particularly persuasive. Since it is a quote by Obama himself stating his plan, that does not demonstrate that Obama has actually implemented a plan that is right now doing much to make America more self-sufficient, which I think is the root of the Republican criticism.

Third, the author argues that Republicans live by the mantra of “drill, baby drill,” and criticize Obama for not doing more domestic drilling to effectuate energy self-sufficiency. The author claims Republicans are wrong on this point because even if Obama did drill in the ANWR, it would take ten years for it to be used as gasoline. Moreover, the author argues that increasing the use of natural gas, as Republicans urge, is too dangerous and would lead to disastrous environmental consequences. I think the author’s evidence and logic do support his points that those specific solutions offered by Republicans may not be sound; however, I think he dismisses natural gas solutions too quickly, and he did not address oil drilling suggestions by Republicans in areas other than ANWR.

Fourth, the author states that Republicans claim that Obama does not have an effective energy strategy because he has exaggerated the potential environmental consequences. The author criticizes this Republican argument by purporting that Republicans have no energy strategy and are only interested in the oil and gas industry because those companies largely support Republicans financially. I think the author’s evidence of how much the oil and gas industry contributes to Republicans does support his argument that Republicans want to continue to pursue those industries. However, I think the author should consider other evidence of why Republicans want to pursue those industries, perhaps job creation and the abundance of those resources. It seems his logic there may be too liberal-biased. Furthermore, he did not address whether or not the environmental consequences were exaggerated; he should have put on evidence explaining more about the detriment to the environment if he disagrees with that part of the Republican argument.

Author's Blog Entry