Why Canada’s belligerent Conservatives are likely praying for peace in the Persian Gulf

Posted on January 05, 2016, 1:27 am
9 mins

PHOTOS: The nuclear powered American aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf in 2014. (U.S. Navy photo.) Mighty warships are the carriers, but in the constricted waters of the Gulf, vulnerable nevertheless. Below: A map of the Gulf, showing the proximity of Saudi Arabia and Iran to one another; a Canadian CF-18, somewhere.

When the habitually belligerent and militaristic leaders of Canada’s conservative political parties gather in their places of worship this weekend, will they be praying uncharacteristically for peace in the Middle East?

Here’s betting they are.

After all, at the moment their sole electoral comeback strategy seems to consist of exploiting the real and imagined impact of very low oil prices on Canada’s and Alberta’s economies to persuade voters our collective economic problems are caused by federal Liberal and provincial NDP mismanagement.

This is a pretty hardgulf_region_map-JPG sell given that the economic troubles in question started on their watch in both Edmonton and Ottawa, and that it was Cap-C Conservatives who decided keeping all our economic eggs in one basket and becoming an “energy superpower” was a viable way to run a country. Nevertheless, the longer low oil prices drag on and the lower our Loonie sinks against the U.S. dollar the more plausible this interpretation is likely to appear to many voters.

So at the risk of sounding excessively cynical by mentioning the blindingly obvious, the suddenly soaring tension between predominantly Shia Muslim Iran and predominantly Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, which are right across the Persian Gulf from one another, has the potential to wreck this desperate Canadian conservative election game plan.

This is because one likely consequence of even a protracted cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is higher oil prices, as real supplies tighten or are threatened, and traders react, often with emotion and irrationality as is quite typical in unregulated markets.

If the war turns hot, there is an inevitable possibility that petroleum prices will surge very high, very quickly, especially if the fighting results in shipping disruptions in the constricted waters of the Persian Gulf, as could easily happen in such a circumstance.

And if such a war got hot enough to damage vulnerable Saudi oil production facilities like the processing centre at Abqaiq, the world’s largest, there’s no telling how high the price of oil could go, or for how long.

BN2012-0408-02 22 November 2012 Bagotville, QC A two-seater CF-18 flies over the Parc des Laurentides en route to Valcartier firing range. Photo: Corporal Pierre Habib, 3 Wing Bagotville. © 2012 DND-MDN Canada French/Français BN2012-0408-02 22 Novembre 2012 Bagotville, Qué Le vol d'un CF-18 à deux places en route vers le champ de tir de Valcartier, au dessus du parc des laurentides. Photo : Caporal Pierre Habib, 3e Escadre Bagotville © 2012 DND-MDN CanadaOnce this kind of trouble really gets rolling it can be very difficult to ratchet it down again. This is especially true if, as in the Middle East today, there are regional players such as Israel and Turkey that may see it as being in their interest to encourage tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This would be true whatever their American ally wants, which seems at the moment to be a continuation of lower oil prices and enough quiet in the Gulf to let them concentrate on their regime-change game in Syria.

The Islamic world has long been divided between the majority Sunni and minority Shia streams of Islam. Like most Westerners, I can’t pretend to understand the theological or cultural basis of this schism, which is said to date back more than 1,300 years.

But this much we know to be true: Garden-variety geopolitical crises can be very difficult to solve in the best of circumstances. Toss in sincerely held religious doctrines and a history of persecution and martyrdom over doctrinal differences between two large and well-armed regional powers and they easily become intractable.

In this, I suspect, we are looking at circumstances not dissimilar in some ways to the great rivalry between Catholic Spain and newly Protestant England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, a situation with which many Canadians will be more familiar for historical cultural reasons. As we know, some aspects of that rivalry were still playing out in the British Isles in the last decades of the 20th Century.

The proximate causes of the sudden deterioration in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are the persecution of Saudi Arabia’s significant Shia minority and in particular the execution – some would say judicial assassination – of Nimr Baqir al-Nimr along with 46 others by Saudi Arabia on Saturday. Saudi Arabian authorities had accused the prominent Shia clergyman of “terrorism,” though it is important to remember from a Western perspective that the Saudis include non-violent criticism of the country’s royal family within their definition of terror.

Take a situation like this and throw in modern anti-ship weapons and worse and, well, the possibility of much higher oil prices edges toward probability.

This led a commenter on the New York Times website on Sunday to contribute the following commentary: “Cui bono? The most productive oil wells in Saudi Arabia are in the east of the country where most of the Arab-speaking tribes are not Sunni but long-oppressed Shiites. If armed conflict erupts between Tehran and Riyadh, and Shiite insurgents disrupt the flow of oil from SA’s eastern wells, then this will drive down the supply of crude from the Near East and drive up prices of global oil.

“In this case, who will benefit most from their increased oil export revenue and improved balance of payments with the USA? Yes, you guessed it – Canada! Canada is by far the biggest single supplier of foreign crude and petroleum products to the US market and thus would benefit most fiscally from this scenario.”

Actually, this analysis pretty well nails it, even if the author’s subsequent stab at humour was misplaced given the potential for horror in this situation. The pseudonymous “Colenso,” apparently of Cairns, Australia, went on: “I know they look so civilized, innocent and wholesome, but there’s more to Canadians than just their love of ice hockey and maple syrup, Vancouver Harbour and healthy outdoor sport. … The most cunning enemy hides in one’s own shadow.”

Given this thought, perhaps there will now really be a temporary change of heart among the Canadian conservatives who have been braying for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to break his campaign promise and let Canada’s six Kuwait-based CF-18 fighter-bombers continue to fly as part of the U.S.-led coalition in the region, doing whatever they’ve been doing there. This hasn’t seemed very often to actually involve fighting ISIS, which may very well be Saudi Arabia’s surrogate in Syria and Iraq.

But I suspect that for one weekend at least Canadian conservatives will quite sincerely be seeking the intercession of the Almighty to keep Saudi Arabia’s wells pumping and the Persian Gulf wide open to peaceful navigation.

That way, Canada’s economy can remain “stuck in the awkward place,” as an economist quoted by Bloomberg News recently put it. And if that is the worst possible place for it under current circumstances, that is precisely where the conservatives want it to be.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

12 Comments to: Why Canada’s belligerent Conservatives are likely praying for peace in the Persian Gulf

  1. January 5th, 2016

    Probably an accurate assessment of just how cynical the conservative forces have descended to. There needs to be a complete overhaul of conservative values to get that party back to authentic public interest and social harmony goals. Allowing oligarchs to call the shots has led to an abyss.

    Reply
    • Athabascan

      January 5th, 2016

      LOL You used the words “conservative” and “values” in the same sentence.

      I’m pretty sure that fits the definition of an oxymoron.

      I’ll have to check my dictionary.

      Reply
      • January 6th, 2016

        There was a time when conservate did not just mean lawless corporatist sham politics. During the time of Theodore Roosevelt about 116 years ago – there was a progressive mission – to conserve what is in the public interest, and to discard what is not functional. This recent deregulated self regulating fraud culture is not functional. http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-text-november-2015.pdf

        Reply
  2. Dave

    January 5th, 2016

    Just like the far right to hope that Alberta’s economy continues to falter due to low oil prices. They don’t really want Albertans to have good paying jobs and are happy to see many (former) oil patch workers losing their half tons and houses. It was never about working people doing well.

    Remember Jim Prentice and the PCs solution to his government’s financial problems last spring was austerity for working Albertans while leaving the oil companies and the wealthy untouched by any increased contribution to government coffers. No, it was just cuts to government programs that it turned out were very popular with the working class who promptly turfed Prentice and his right wing pals from government.

    Reply
  3. January 5th, 2016

    Eric Margolis was one of the few reasons to read a Sun chain paper and he’s been saying for years that the real underlying conflict in the Middle East is and always has been the Arab Sunni/ Persian Shia cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    It’s really an accident of history that the West ended up allied with the Sauds. Iran is a deeply unpleasant theocracy but its much less repressive than Saudi Arabia with a far more secular population.

    As to the likelihood of a conflict in the Middle East big enough to spike oil prices, I’ve been expecting it ever since the price dropped below $50.

    Reply
    • David Climenhaga

      January 5th, 2016

      I agree with Chris that Eric Margolis was a rare bright spot in Sun Media’s stable of columnists back in the day. He now seems to have been banished from the Suns’ pages, probably for being insufficiently enthusiastic about the policies pursued by the current government of Israel. Regardless, his well-informed commentary on geopolitical issues can be found at EricMargolis.com.

      Reply
  4. David

    January 5th, 2016

    There is a whole lot more at stake here than Canada’s or Alberta’s interest. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been going on for a long time, but things are at a dangerous point now and it could heat up and/or unexpected things could happen.

    One of the important things to consider is how the US will react to this. They are no fan of the Saudis and want an end to ISIS, which the Saudis are sponsoring. However, the Saudis have been a long term and loyal ally of the US, continually supplying the US with oil when other oil state regimes less friendly to the US could not be depended on.

    One of these less friendly regimes in the past has been Iran, which seems to have recently toned down its anti US rhetoric, seems like it may actually become more moderate and is arguably causing less trouble for the US now than the Saudis.

    I wonder if we are at a tipping point where the US decides the Saudis are more trouble than they are worth and it may be better to continue to try to get friendlier with Iran. If this is the case, who knows what could happen – regime change in Saudi Arabia?

    Reply
  5. Agustin

    January 5th, 2016

    The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia could lead to sustained low oil prices, too. Low oil prices hurt Iran more than they hurt Saudi Arabia, so Saudi Arabia has little reason to ease up on supply.

    As well, as Robert Skinner points out (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/iran-saudi-arabia-oil-opec-crisis-1.3388770), Iran will soon be able to increase global supply as sanctions are removed.

    If there’s any conclusion we can draw with a reasonable amount of certainty it’s that the price of oil is unpredictable over meaningful time scales. That alone makes it a dangerous crutch on which to lean our economy. (Not to mention the other problems it causes.)

    Reply
    • David Climenhaga

      January 6th, 2016

      Fair enough, but this argument presupposes peace, or a reasonable facsimile, in which case the Cons, having hollowed out or manufacturing sector to the point it is unlikely ever to recover, get their wished-for economic disaster. But the threat of war, let alone an actual war, presents a quite different scenario, in particular because the Saudi oil processing infrastructure is so very, very vulnerable. Half a dozen major processing facilities, all within easy reach of Iran, each of which would take years to repair and restore. Yikers!

      Reply
      • Agustin

        January 6th, 2016

        I probably didn’t write it very well (I may have buried my lede), but I agree that the price of oil could go up as well as down as a result of this escalation in the conflict, and so my overriding conclusion is about the high uncertainty.

        At any rate, I’m hoping for both peace and higher oil prices 🙂

        Reply
  6. POGO IS DEAD

    January 5th, 2016

    The thing is, the Saudis have been delicate with Israel and because of that and oil, we went along with the British and American interests that chose them as allies. Maybe David knows or can recall what our response was to the coup that toppled Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran. My thought is that in that act, we have the nexus of all the current trouble and likely many millions of lives can laid at the CIA doorstep. Selling the Saudis armored cars is about as cynical as it gets. But I guess by that act, shall we know our sovereignty. My sums say zero.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (not be published)