Personal tools

Argument: Risks of a nuclear Iran will raise oil prices

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
 +*[[Resolved: That the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran]]
==Supporting evidence== ==Supporting evidence==

Revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2007

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center argues on 9/13/04 that, "A nuclear-ready Iran could be emboldened to manipulate oil prices upward. It might attempt this either by threatening the freedom of the seas (by mining oil transit points as it did in the l980s or by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz) or by using terrorist proxies to threaten the destruction of Saudi and other Gulf state oil facilities and pipelines... Iran has already deployed anti-shipping missiles at Qeshm, Abu Musa Island and on Sirri Island, all of which are in range of shipping through the Strait. It has also occupied and fortified three islands inside the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz –Abu Musa, The Greater Tunbs and the Lesser Tunbs. Given that one-fifth of the world’s entire oil demand flows through the Straits (as well as roughly a quarter of America’s supply of oil) and no other nation that has fortified its shores near Hormuz, an Iranian threat to disrupt commerce there would have to be taken seriously by commercial concerns (e.g., insurers and commodity markets) and other nations."


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits