Bombing Iran

BOMBING IRAN….The Washington Post front pages a story today about the possible effects of a U.S. attack on Iran, and unsurprisingly, spoon feeds us the usual doom-and-gloom narrative favored by the effete liberals in the mainstream media:

A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the Bush administration.

The small amount of excess oil production capacity worldwide would provide an insufficient cushion if armed conflict disrupted supplies, oil experts say, and petroleum prices would skyrocket….”If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets,” said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a District oil consulting firm.

Apparently the Post failed to contact the Heritage Foundation about this story. Typical MSM. But if they had, they would have discovered that the Heritage boffins completed a detailed study three months ago demonstrating that a strike against Iran would actually be good for the U.S. — as long as we carefully follow their policy prescriptions when we do it, that is. Lower taxes, reduced energy industry regulation, drilling in ANWR, and the end of tariffs on ethanol figure prominently. Too bad the liberal media doesn’t want you to know about this. Why is the Post trying to hide the truth?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation