Will Rogers

Applying economic sanctions to coerce Iran to suspend its nuclear program requires a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, the United States needs to apply enough pressure to compel Iran to come back to the negotiating table (as it has done). On the other hand, the United States needs to avoid applying too much pressure, which might convince officials in Tehran to do something drastic out of the belief that it is the least bad option, like attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz to energy exports from other Persian Gulf petroleum producers.

Granting waivers to China, Singapore and others so that these countries can keep purchasing Iranian oil helps strike this balance. As the pressure on Iran ramps up with the European Union’s sanctions going into full force yesterday, Tehran’s ability to continue to export petroleum to some consumers helps keep Iranian officials from perceiving themselves to be locked in a losing status quo, which could be dangerously counterproductive. Generally speaking, states that frame the status quo as a losing one are more prone to bel

Recent hearings on Capitol Hill suggest that there is a bit of confusion about the military’s efforts to research, develop and test renewable fuels. Critics charge the Navy and the other services with being co-opted by a green agenda – adopting biofuels for the sole purpose of combating climate change and promoting eco-friendly interests. But that is not it at all. Although being environmentally sustainable and improving energy security are not mutually exclusive, the military’s efforts are first and foremost about improving mission effectiveness and ensuring that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have access to the fuel they need to conduct their operations and protect U.S. interests.

The U.S. military is overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels, with nearly 80 percent of its energy coming from petroleum fuel. This dependence brings both fiscal challenges and concerns about assured access to energy resources. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in 2008 tha

The price of gasoline is a hot-button issue on the campaign trail as Americans across the country face more pain at the pump. Whether or not gasoline prices influence presidential politics is a matter of debate. But if they do, those who argue that the election won’t be shaped by foreign policy and national security should think again. While idle and closing U.S. oil refineries are contributing to higher gasoline prices in some parts of the country, growing global oil consumption and geopolitical crises – from the Persian Gulf to Nigeria – are having the most impact on the price at the pump.

First, some facts about U.S. oil consumption and production are in order. U.S oil consumption has declined in recent years, from an all-time-high of more than 20.9 million barrels a day in 2005 to just over 19 million barrels a day in 2010. At the same time, production from U.S. reserves has steadily increased, from about 5.18 million barrels a day in 2005 to 5.4 million barrels a day in 2010, helping reduce the demand for oil imports. The United States, for example,

Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and worsening stability in Nigeria, America’s fifth largest oil supplier, are likely to lead to higher petroleum prices in 2012, contributing to greater instability in countries facing fuel shortages and nipping at the heels of America’s economic recovery. Yet, ironically, higher oil prices could also bolster U.S. energy security in the long term by continuing to spur commercial interest in alternative biofuels that will help move America beyond oil as the dominant source of liquid fuels.

As petroleum prices climb, biofuels will continue to grow in demand, helping develop a market for the still nascent industry by making those fuels cost-competitive with conventional oil. Demand from the U.S. military has already helped significantly cut the price of biofuels in just several short years. In 2009, for example, the U.S. Navy purchased its first batch of biofuel (about 20,055 gallons) at a cost of $424 a gallon. In December 2011, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the U.S. Navy would purchase 450,000 ga

Washington has failed to have a serious conversation about U.S. economic and national security interests in the Arctic, and time is running short for the president and congress to act.

The loss of Arctic summer sea ice has created new opportunities for access to commercial maritime routes and sea lines of communication that could dramatically shorten the travel time from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The potential access to huge reserves of zinc, nickel, palladium and other valuable materials, in addition to the nearly 1.2 trillion dollars in estimated oil and natural gas, could be a windfall to the U.S. economy as the country continues to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, the rise in eco-tourism will challenge the U.S. Coast Guard’s limited search and rescue capabilities, and the potential proliferation of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials across the Arctic Ocean will leave U.S. law enforcement officials hamstrung unless the United States has the capabilities and policies set in place for interdicting dangerous ma