- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
All kinds of motivations at play here, and not all of them are in alignment.
Saudi Arabia wants to use low oil prices to keep Iran from getting the financial resources to become regional hegemon, and also to hurt Iranian allies and proxies who need petrodollars to assist Iran (which turn out to be Russia and Syria).
However, Saudi Arabia also spends $100 billion/year running its elaborate welfare system, and their sovereign wealth fund will run out in five to seven years, depending on what assumptions you make. Paying groups like ISIS through the back door in order to have a proxy army to strike Iranian interests isn't cheap either.
Russia's economy requires oil at $100/barrel to keep paying for both its internal needs and foreign military adventures. Even pushing the price of oil over $50 will stem the bleeding. (Although there is no mention of this anywhere, I wonder if there might be some sort of quid pro pro in the background; i.e. Russia backs off supporting Syria and Iran in return for Saudi Arabia supporting oil prices).
Iran, of course, is desperate for new revenues in order to keep its population pacified while also paying for their own expensive quest for regional hegemony. Since they are trying to do it the old fashioned way with developing nuclear weapons, conventional military and political power, they must be burning through cash at an incredible rate. Western air strikes against ISIS actually help the Iranians preserve resources, reducing the number of airstrikes the Iranians have to undertake against ISIS on their own.
While low oil prices also hurt American and Canadian oil producers, this is really collateral damage (and acceptable damage at that) so far as the Saudis are concerned.
The ideal for the Saudis would be to somehow finesse oil prices to stay around $50/bbl to ease their own cash burn while not allowing their enemies to benefit too much.
Saudi Arabia wants to use low oil prices to keep Iran from getting the financial resources to become regional hegemon, and also to hurt Iranian allies and proxies who need petrodollars to assist Iran (which turn out to be Russia and Syria).
However, Saudi Arabia also spends $100 billion/year running its elaborate welfare system, and their sovereign wealth fund will run out in five to seven years, depending on what assumptions you make. Paying groups like ISIS through the back door in order to have a proxy army to strike Iranian interests isn't cheap either.
Russia's economy requires oil at $100/barrel to keep paying for both its internal needs and foreign military adventures. Even pushing the price of oil over $50 will stem the bleeding. (Although there is no mention of this anywhere, I wonder if there might be some sort of quid pro pro in the background; i.e. Russia backs off supporting Syria and Iran in return for Saudi Arabia supporting oil prices).
Iran, of course, is desperate for new revenues in order to keep its population pacified while also paying for their own expensive quest for regional hegemony. Since they are trying to do it the old fashioned way with developing nuclear weapons, conventional military and political power, they must be burning through cash at an incredible rate. Western air strikes against ISIS actually help the Iranians preserve resources, reducing the number of airstrikes the Iranians have to undertake against ISIS on their own.
While low oil prices also hurt American and Canadian oil producers, this is really collateral damage (and acceptable damage at that) so far as the Saudis are concerned.
The ideal for the Saudis would be to somehow finesse oil prices to stay around $50/bbl to ease their own cash burn while not allowing their enemies to benefit too much.