April 12, 2003
ON TO DAMASCUS:
U.S. cuts Iraqi oil supply to Syria (WORLD TRIBUNE.COM, April 12, 2003)The United States has halted the flow of Iraqi oil to Syria. Western intelligence sources said U.S.-led coalition forces shut off the oil pump outside the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday. The Kirkuk facility was pumping about 250,000 barrels of oil via a pipeline to the Syrian port of Banyas, Middle East Newsline reported."It's a major move by the United States and will have a significant affect on Syria," a senior intelligence source said. "The Syrians are very upset."
Intelligence sources said Iraqi oil pumped to Syria over the last two years had been a major source of revenue for the regime of President Bashar Assad. Iraq had sold the oil to Syria for about $11 a barrel and the Assad regime exported the fuel at market prices and kept the difference.
The next battle has already begun. Look for leaks about Iraqs Ba’athists escaping to Syria and WMD having been hidden there.
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 12, 2003 3:49 PM
12 April 2003 and you are just now starting to ask questions about the vested interests of one of the 15 members of the Security Council in the Iraq situation? Brilliant. I guess by 2009 or so a tiny 15 watt bulb might go off over your head as you suddenly realise that maybe the USA also had a "vested interest" in the outcome of this conflict. D'uhhh....
Posted by: Bill Gates at April 12, 2003 5:51 PMSo that's, what, half-a-billion dollars a year the Syrians are losing? Wonder how that rates as a piece of their budget...
Posted by: mike earl at April 12, 2003 6:34 PMMr. Judd;
Didn't we already blow up that pipeline?
AOG:
Apparently not...
Bill:
Certainly not a monetary one.
mike - at a world price of $25/bbl, they're losing $3.5 mn a day or over $1 bn per year.
AOG/oj - I think they did damage the pipeline slightly to stop flows for a week or two until they got control of the pumping station last Tuesday.
PJ -
Yes, you're right. That's about $1.5B.
The CIA's public factbook states that Syria has a GDP of about $55B, with exports of $5B, imports of $4B, and $22B in debt.
I'd think a $1B drop in exports would leave them with a serious problem obtaining enough foreign currency to make debt payments.
So, OJ, as a populist and an opponent of big government, aren't you at all bothered that the administration seems to be trying to Gulf-of-Tonkin us into this next war? I think you're letting your bloodlust subvert your love of democracy.
Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at April 12, 2003 10:40 PMCharles:
I'm pro-Gulf-of-Tonkining our way into several more battles.
Charles, surely you must admit that the sweetheart deal for oil at $11/barrel is illegitimate, and certainly not one that a new Iraqi government would want to uphold. Under an independent analysis, cutting off the oil would be an obvious answer.
Of course, what you're worried about here is the Syrian reaction. They may of course be willing to treat the ending of an illegitimate deal as an act of war. But is it really right to continue to bribe the Syrians, especially with the oil that a new Iraqi government will need?
And why shouldn't the Syrians taste democracy.
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2003 1:24 PMJohn-- I didn't mean to dispute the illegitimacy of the oil deal with Syria; certainly a free Iraq should be able to do whatever it wants, and if we want to shut down the oil for now, that's fine. I'm still bothered by the "Leviathan"-ish implications of the gov't dragging the people into a war on potentially false premises.
Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at April 13, 2003 5:57 PMCharles:
All of government operates on false premises--like that your FICA taxes pay for your Social Security--why should war be different?
The government isn't pushing me into war. I'm
trying to push it and getting frustrated.
I had all the evidence I needed a long time ago.