Why does USA hate Iran so much and love Saudi Arabia so much?

I'm expecting an Iraq like disaster for Iran . Total cut off of their oil exports, sending a aircraft carrier and battle group to the Persian Gulf. Is a weapons of mass destruction claim next? Meanwhile Saudi gets support as they bomb Yemen to bits. I just don't get it.
«1

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Me neither NP. It's about Israel I suspect. I think something might happen soon about the West Bank, something awful.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    The US and British love affair with Wahhabism goes back a long way. Generally fundamentalist theocratic regimes have been preferred to secular Arab states that might threaten to infringe on Western business interests. Oil wealth is of course a huge factor nowadays, but not the only one. Despite being a theocratic state itself, Iran has a broadly anti-imperialistic stance that befriends it to governments in the Middle East and around the world that the USA doesn't like.

    If the US were to actually go to war with Iran, I believe it would make the Iraq war look like a fun time. The geography is very different, for one thing, and the Iranian government enjoys more genuine support from the population- and many more friends in the region- than Saddam did. And Iran is much better positioned to hit us where it hurts. Ships in the Persian Gulf- quite narrow and shallow- would be easy targets for swarms of anti-ship missiles. Perhaps even more deadly would be strikes on Saudi's desalination plants, which would put the Saudis in an immediate water crisis. And of course oil refineries... Iran is close and well-armed enough to do all this and all the fancy gadgets we pour untold billions into cannot stop it.

    To be fair, not all American politicians are bought off by the Saudis- the Obamas and Clintons, for instance, are bought off by Qatar.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    The US and British love affair with Wahhabism goes back a long way. Generally fundamentalist theocratic regimes have been preferred to secular Arab states that might threaten to infringe on Western business interests. Oil wealth is of course a huge factor nowadays, but not the only one. Despite being a theocratic state itself, Iran has a broadly anti-imperialistic stance that befriends it to governments in the Middle East and around the world that the USA doesn't like.

    This very recent article in the LRB is quite informative on the topic.

    I am curious as to the writer's conclusion, ie. it would be easier for the UK to extricate itself from the Saudi alliance than for the US. Going by his own article, the connections between the UK and the KSA are pretty deep.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    And even global-liberal icon Trudeau, despite this sort of posturing, has yet to cancel the Canada-Saudi arms-deal, even though he currently has the power to do so.

    I think the official reason is that, with the deal having already been negotiated by the evil Conservatives, to cancel it now would damage Canada's reputation as a trading partner on the world stage.

    (cough cough votes in the factory towns cough cough)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    I think there is more risk of the US going into Venezuela at the moment to be honest.

    I think the sabre rattling is because authoritarian rulers (and their wannabes) always need an external threat to justify themselves.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Nobody's invading anywhere.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I think there is more risk of the US going into Venezuela at the moment to be honest.

    I agree. If there was gonna be an unprovoked US attack on Iran(like Iraq 2003), it likely would have happened by now.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    While Bolton has claimed irrefutable evidence that Iran is threatening the US, he offers no proof.

    Bolton has never liked Iran. It was because of him the Bush II regime did not negotiate with them, And now he has the presumptive president's ear.

    Why are Americans inclined more to Saudi Arabia then Iran? We have gotten a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia. It controls the world's price of oil. It can also threaten Israel if we do not keep it appeased.

    The US continues to hold a grudge about how its embassy was seized, its diplomats were kidnapped and held hostage. But in reality, Al Qaeda and even Daesch came from Saudi Arabian roots. They have inflicted more damage to the interests of America and its allies.

    Congress tried to cut off funding to the Yemen bombing but it was vetoed by our presumed president and sustained by the US Senate.

    Remember the move The Tail Wagging the Dog? It was about an American president who so desperately wanted to be re-elected that he started a war with a country that should have easily been defeated. I think this is 90% of what is happening,

    But with Russia at their back door, and China being a strong customer for Iranian Oil, my bet is we are going to blink. I certainly hope so.

    While it won't go anywhere because of our veto power, I think Iran should take this to the UN Security Council to get it all aired out and to show the US just how unpopular out policy to Iran really is world wide
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    To the OP.

    US-Saudi relations have been fine and dandy since 1933.

    US-Iran relations were good from the time of the C19th Great Game between the UK and Russia until the democratically elected Mossadegh government terminated by the CIA-MI6 (fearing a Soviet takeover from the north and Mossadegh's temerity in wanting to know what the British were up to in their monopoly on Iranian oil) after 2 years in '53, putting the oustandingly appalling Shah in power until the '79 revolution 40 years ago.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited May 6
    Martin54 wrote: »
    To the OP.

    US-Saudi relations have been fine and dandy since 1933.

    US-Iran relations were good from the time of the C19th Great Game between the UK and Russia until the democratically elected Mossadegh government terminated by the CIA-MI6 (fearing a Soviet takeover from the north and Mossadegh's temerity in wanting to know what the British were up to in their monopoly on Iranian oil) after 2 years in '53, putting the oustandingly appalling Shah in power until the '79 revolution 40 years ago.

    True

    Slight correction of my above comments

    Wag the Dog is a 1997 black comedy film produced and directed by Barry Levinson and starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro. The screenplay concerns a spin doctor and a Hollywood producer who fabricate a war to distract voters from a presidential sex scandal.
  • A commentator suggested that the USA wants to support its domestic oil production. Keep prices up. Being the largest producer of oil. Strangling Iran to support the USA economy. Which plays well for the current American presidente who thinks another term. Probably he'll win again with the unequal vote weighting scheme used in America?

    Re the Iranian seizure of the USA embassy. Symbolic as I recall it. Seems like a long long time ago that the USA supported the murderous shah regime which was awfully brutal. The embassy thing didn't equate.

    Controllable dictators are good for profit and business apparently. While Venezuela is off topic and has no where near the ability to retaliate, Russians may prevent this ill-advised idea. Venezuela reminds me of Nicaragua and Reagan's plot. History seeming to be quite similar under prior presidents.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Some reporters did a bit a few months ago about the pistachio trade as one small but sleazy element here... the owners of the massive Wonderful Pistachios company in California are evidently big boosters of sanctions and perhaps war with Iran. Anything to keep those Iranian pistachios out of the market.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Whenever I read about the history of the relations between Iran and the UK, I'm surprised the Iranians don't hate the British more ...
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Rickardus, Hawthorn won Premierships throughout the 1980's. I hated them for it. Then they fell back to the pack. A few years ago they started winning again, and all that hatred came flooding back.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Riiight. War is nuts.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    The US and British love affair with Wahhabism goes back a long way. Generally fundamentalist theocratic regimes have been preferred to secular Arab states that might threaten to infringe on Western business interests. Oil wealth is of course a huge factor nowadays, but not the only one. Despite being a theocratic state itself, Iran has a broadly anti-imperialistic stance that befriends it to governments in the Middle East and around the world that the USA doesn't like.

    This very recent article in the LRB is quite informative on the topic.

    I am curious as to the writer's conclusion, ie. it would be easier for the UK to extricate itself from the Saudi alliance than for the US. Going by his own article, the connections between the UK and the KSA are pretty deep.
    Thanks for posting that link. I think he means that (in his view) the US would be giving up an essential element of strategic power over Asia ("Three-quarters of Gulf oil exports go to Asian economies, and the five largest importers of gas from Qatar are Japan, South Korea, India, China and Singapore. US dominance in the Gulf gives it decisive strategic influence over any potential Asian rival.")

    The UK doesn't have pretensions to global dominance any more, so engagement with the region, lucrative though it is, just isn't as important to the UK as it is to the US.

    I am, in turn, curious about his conclusion that "US planners seem confused about their own intentions in the Middle East." He seems very sure of his opinion on American interests; I wonder if US planners seem confused to him because they don't entirely share that opinion.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Edit: ignore this
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Dave W wrote: »

    I am, in turn, curious about his conclusion that "US planners seem confused about their own intentions in the Middle East." He seems very sure of his opinion on American interests; I wonder if US planners seem confused to him because they don't entirely share that opinion.

    I think it's also possible that the planners who write stuff like "the problem in the Gulf is entrenched eltites and low oil prices" are not the same planners who make the decisions to support those things.

    So, you're an analyst working in the Department Of Whatever, and someone asks you to write a report on the Gulf and its problems. If you think the problems are elites and cheap oil, that would probably be what you write in your report. Whether the US should be supporting those things as a matter of policy is not for those planners to decide, They just hand their analysis to someone else in the bureaucracy who reads it and determines what to do with it.

    And those other people could very well say "Yeah, too bad about the dictators and the bargain basement oil, but we live in the real world, and encouraging revolution in the Gulf and asking Americans to line up for gas again isn't what we wanna be doing."

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    . I think he means that (in his view) the US would be giving up an essential element of strategic power over Asia ("Three-quarters of Gulf oil exports go to Asian economies, and the five largest importers of gas from Qatar are Japan, South Korea, India, China and Singapore. US dominance in the Gulf gives it decisive strategic influence over any potential Asian rival.")

    The UK doesn't have pretensions to global dominance any more, so engagement with the region, lucrative though it is, just isn't as important to the UK as it is to the US.

    Yeah, relative to the US, the UK has less interest in upholding the status quo in the Gulf. But in absolute terms, their interests seem extensive enough that it would be a headache multiplied by 1000 to change all that, and it's hard to see any politician proposing any significant alteration to the relationships.

    See my earlier example of Justin Trudeau for an example of an ostensibly progressive politician unwilling to cancel even one arms deal. And in the last election, even the NDP(like pro-Blair Labour), while condemning Harper's original deal, still fell back on "Well, we can't very well back out now, can we." The relevant unions also support the deal.

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited May 7
    I'm expecting an Iraq like disaster for Iran . Total cut off of their oil exports, sending a aircraft carrier and battle group to the Persian Gulf. Is a weapons of mass destruction claim next? Meanwhile Saudi gets support as they bomb Yemen to bits. I just don't get it.

    Easy.

    1. By taking over the US Embassy in Tehran the Iranians made the US (to the US mind) look like fools. This is not something that any country likes but the US in particular is very prickly about its image abroad as the world's "good guys". Being routed by an aged cleric was never part of the desired picture.

    2. The attempted rescue of the people held in the Tehran embassy was an unmitigated disaster, one which exposed the US special forces as poorly trained and inadequate to the task. The official report into the debacle blamed bad planning, chaotic command structure, lack of cohesive effort between the various services. Yes, there was a dust storm but that was just the icing on a particularly noxious cake.

    3. US administrations have always failed to appreciate that the Iranians are not arabs: this basic lack of understanding has poisoned the US view of Tehran. As well as wrongly assuming that the Iranians are different, long ago the US decided that the Saudis were the "good" arabs and many of their problems in the middle east flow from this mindset (the UK isn't much different except that we do get that the Iranians are different).

    4. Having decided that the Saudis are the "good" arabs it would take an exceptional President, backed by exceptional people in the State and Defence departments, to have the humility to back away from the entrenched pro-Saudi position, show a little humility and actually find out a lot more about the region and its peoples. The prospects of this happening any time soon, if ever, don't look good.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    For what four year term economic foreign policy reason would they?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    At some point, both the Saudis and Iranians will realise that their strategic allies in the West (US and Russia) don't need their oil any more.

    Then they'll be free to knock the hell out of each other in a regional war that'll make Yemen look like a Sunday school picnic.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I am, in turn, curious about his conclusion that "US planners seem confused about their own intentions in the Middle East." He seems very sure of his opinion on American interests; I wonder if US planners seem confused to him because they don't entirely share that opinion.

    It's hard to say, as it's seems to be a throw away line at the end of the article without much explanation - and without an obvious connection with anything earlier in the article.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    At some point, both the Saudis and Iranians will realise that their strategic allies in the West (US and Russia) don't need their oil any more.

    Then they'll be free to knock the hell out of each other in a regional war that'll make Yemen look like a Sunday school picnic.

    Iran would make very quick work of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis can’t even beat half-starved, poorly armed peasants in Yemen. They would simple crumble against Iran. That’s why the Saudis are scrambling to get anyone- US, Israel, Pakistan, assorted jihadists- to attack Iran on their behalf.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    And Iran doesn’t even need to fight Saudi’s joke of an army (mostly mercenaries from the Sahel). They just need to hit those coastal desalination plants and the whole thing’s over.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    At some point, both the Saudis and Iranians will realise that their strategic allies in the West (US and Russia) don't need their oil any more.

    Then they'll be free to knock the hell out of each other in a regional war that'll make Yemen look like a Sunday school picnic.

    Fret not, Pax Sinensis will prevail. And that's decades away. If that.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »

    I am, in turn, curious about his conclusion that "US planners seem confused about their own intentions in the Middle East." He seems very sure of his opinion on American interests; I wonder if US planners seem confused to him because they don't entirely share that opinion.

    I think it's also possible that the planners who write stuff like "the problem in the Gulf is entrenched eltites and low oil prices" are not the same planners who make the decisions to support those things.

    That’s not a distinction the author makes, though. I suppose he might have chosen to save his final paragraph to take a swipe at unimportant analysts at the Department of Whatever whose opinions are completely irrelevant to actual US policy, but it would be an odd choice.
  • I'm expecting an Iraq like disaster for Iran . Total cut off of their oil exports, sending a aircraft carrier and battle group to the Persian Gulf. Is a weapons of mass destruction claim next? Meanwhile Saudi gets support as they bomb Yemen to bits. I just don't get it.

    Easy.

    1. By taking over the US Embassy in Tehran the Iranians made the US (to the US mind) look like fools. This is not something that any country likes but the US in particular is very prickly about its image abroad as the world's "good guys". Being routed by an aged cleric was never part of the desired picture.

    2. The attempted rescue of the people held in the Tehran embassy was an unmitigated disaster, one which exposed the US special forces as poorly trained and inadequate to the task. The official report into the debacle blamed bad planning, chaotic command structure, lack of cohesive effort between the various services. Yes, there was a dust storm but that was just the icing on a particularly noxious cake.

    3. US administrations have always failed to appreciate that the Iranians are not arabs: this basic lack of understanding has poisoned the US view of Tehran. As well as wrongly assuming that the Iranians are different, long ago the US decided that the Saudis were the "good" arabs and many of their problems in the middle east flow from this mindset (the UK isn't much different except that we do get that the Iranians are different).

    4. Having decided that the Saudis are the "good" arabs it would take an exceptional President, backed by exceptional people in the State and Defence departments, to have the humility to back away from the entrenched pro-Saudi position, show a little humility and actually find out a lot more about the region and its peoples. The prospects of this happening any time soon, if ever, don't look good.

    Don't they have a few people working for the gov't who know what you just posted? :scream:

    The current guy probably wouldn't listen, being a genius etc, but at least one of the previous people? I mean FMGWAC** already.


    **f*** me gently with a chainsaw
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Obama made a pivot away from the pro-Saudi slavishness with the Iran nuclear deal, though he also greenlit the Saudi attack on Yemen- some speculate that the latter was a trade for the former. The role of Qatar should not be underestimated... though they have the same basic ideology as the Saudis, they have their own creepy vision for the region, and happen not to share the Saudis' pathological hatred for Iran. They too have loads of lobbyists and servile think tanks in Washington.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    **f*** me gently with a chainsaw

    The only other place I've heard this delightful phrase is the film Heathers... is there an older source for it?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 7
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    At some point, both the Saudis and Iranians will realise that their strategic allies in the West (US and Russia) don't need their oil any more.

    Then they'll be free to knock the hell out of each other in a regional war that'll make Yemen look like a Sunday school picnic.

    And Russian doesn't need Iranian oil, having the second greatest reserves on Earth. It needs the Iranian buffer, part of the Shia Syria-Iran-Iraq buffer. All but encircling Turkey and keeping the proselytizing Sunni Arabs way out of the Caucasus and central Asia. China likes that too.

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil (less than 10% of its imports admittedly, but leverage, you know? Eggs, baskets.) and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Not entirely based on my prejudices: IRL I had a friend who worked for the State Department and he didn't really "get" the difference between Arabs and Persians. As my Iranian friends point out, they have a proud history and up to their conquest by Alexander the Great had a vast, wealthy and cultured empire. As they would say, they are the descendants of Cyrus the Great, Xerxes and Darius - where is the arab equivalent?

    Yes, I agree the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may not be typical but is his grasp of the history of other peoples any less shaky than a fair number of his fellow countrymen? Politicians of all hues can be remarkably ignorant and crass.
  • **f*** me gently with a chainsaw

    The only other place I've heard this delightful phrase is the film Heathers... is there an older source for it?
    That's where it's from. Along with The Big Lebowski and The Sorceror (1977 movie) one of top 3 movies.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    When it runs out they'll have paved the Sun's Anvil with Chinese solar cells.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    ^ According to the LRB piece I posted above, the point of US support for Saudi Arabia is to ensure that the oil-producing Gulf-region stays in friendly hands, not to ensure that the oil neccesarily gets sold to the US.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Friendly to the US, that is.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Friendly to the US, that is.

    Yeah, that's what I meant.

  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    When it runs out they'll have paved the Sun's Anvil with Chinese solar cells.

    Thanks. I might start a thread asking why China gets soft-pedalled too, despite outright persecution of Christians only rivalled by North Korea.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    This is misleading; the market for oil is a global one, disrupt supply in one of the larger producers and exporters and the oil price increases everywhere regardless of whether or not you are using that supplier. The US (and western economies in general) are heavily oil dependent and would be hit by interconnected shocks should the oil price spike suddenly.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Follow the money.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    This is misleading; the market for oil is a global one, disrupt supply in one of the larger producers and exporters and the oil price increases everywhere regardless of whether or not you are using that supplier. The US (and western economies in general) are heavily oil dependent and would be hit by interconnected shocks should the oil price spike suddenly.

    Misleading how?
  • edited May 8
    Not so simple. When oil is more costly, Americans frack away at more expensive oil extraction and dream about hammering the arctic. This creates "good jobs", meaning voters for you.

    (Add a good bombing of some vilified brown country and you've got another term for this dude. Maybe a terror attack for good measure. And something about abortion.)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    When it runs out they'll have paved the Sun's Anvil with Chinese solar cells.

    Thanks. I might start a thread asking why China gets soft-pedalled too, despite outright persecution of Christians only rivalled by North Korea.

    The standard Cold War line was to say that liberal and leftist elites adore China because it's socialist, so prefer not to mention its bad human-rights record. But honestly, cold-hearted capitalist calculations probably play the largest role: China's one of the world's big sweatshops, and also holds a lot of US debt, so nobody important sees any major interest in seriously undermining them.

    Even Trump just wants to get more favourable business arrangements out of the Chinese, not bring their whole system crashing down like we brought down the USSR.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited May 8
    And now, Iran is partially withdrawing from the nuclear agreement. I do not blame her with a big bully egging her on. Russia is now taking the side of Iran. Surprise, Surprise.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Yes. I haven't yet heard about Europe's response.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 8
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    When will the US not want Saudi Oil and not want the leverage it has over Japan, Korea et al that do even more?

    The US will keep on buying Saudi oil for centuries yet, until it has more, cheaper oil at home, and then the Saudis can rot.

    The US consumes 5% of its oil from Saudi. Saudi exports 10 x more to China, India, Singapore, Egypt, Turkey. It exports the same amount to the US as it does to Belgium.

    This is misleading; the market for oil is a global one, disrupt supply in one of the larger producers and exporters and the oil price increases everywhere regardless of whether or not you are using that supplier. The US (and western economies in general) are heavily oil dependent and would be hit by interconnected shocks should the oil price spike suddenly.

    Misleading how?

    In that you can't use that 5% statistic to argue that the US isn't (indirectly -- but only slightly due to price) dependent on keeping Saudi oil flowing.

    If it stops flowing the price goes up for *everyone*, including the US. Furthermore, Saudi oil has the lowest production cost of the big three - so generates a greater downwards pressure on the price.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    The dependency is also on being the protector of that for Asian consumers.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The dependency is also on being the protector of that for Asian consumers.

    The greater dependency is in the protection for US consumers by keeping oil prices down, thus keeping dollars flowing to China and sustaining the market for US debt.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Now that I'll buy for a dollar.
Sign In or Register to comment.