The Economy Becomes a Hostage

Troubles in Iran threaten higher energy prices and slower growth

Beyond the fate of the hostages in Tehran, a new worry loomed last week: Was the energy-squeezed and inflation-dazed world economy about to fall victim to the crisis between the U.S. and Iran? Though the U.S.'s cutoff of imports from Iran and its seizure of that nation's assets in U.S. banks was a necessary response to irrational provocations, the actions also transformed petrodollars and petroleum itself into even more dangerous weapons in economic brinksmanship. That, in turn, added a new and alarming element to the crisis.

Tremors of foreboding spread through money markets from Tokyo to Bahrain. The dollar plunged steeply on initial reports that Iran would withdraw its deposits from U.S. banks, then rebounded in nervous surprise at the news that Washington was freezing the assets before they could be withdrawn. When rumors circulated in Europe and New York that Iran would counteract the move by refusing to accept dollars as payment for its oil delivered to any nation, the U.S. currency began to gyrate all over again. Brokers and traders passed the week wearing looks of astonishment at what might come next.

In the U.S., concern focused primarily on what effect the boycott of Iranian oil would have on the domestic economy. Would long gasoline lines return? Would prices for fuels of all sorts take another breathless leap? Would inflation surge, interest rates rise and the economy slip deeper into recession?

Under normal circumstances, neither of the U.S.'s actions should lead to such results. Oil imports from Iran amount to a scant 4% of total U.S. consumption. In theory, at least, those purchases could be easily replaced by swapping: oil companies could exchange Iranian crude with other companies that have equal amounts of non-Iranian petroleum. Nor in theory should the freezing of Iranian bank assets prove especially disruptive to money markets or the banking system. The Tehran government's estimated $6 billion in petrodollar holdings is only a fraction of the more than $150 billion that big international banks move back and forth among each other every day. Withdrawing the Iranian funds would, by itself, hardly cause much more than a momentary ripple.

In fact, the rising stakes in the Iranian mess are almost certain to put alarming new stresses on both the U.S. economy and the world financial system. Asserts Economist Otto Eckstein, president of Data Resources Inc.: "The direct impact of the U.S.'s actions is obviously small. But the unfortunate experience of the past few years has been that every political problem involving an energy-producing nation ultimately converts itself into a further upset in the oil market and a further upset in prices."

For the U.S., which is still hurting from the two-month loss of Iranian crude earlier this year, almost any new interruption in supply, no matter how modest or brief, will lead to tighter markets and higher prices. In their present jittery state, Americans are ready to start topping off gas tanks for almost any reason. Not only does the memory of a summer spent in gas lines remain fresh and infuriating, but so does the specter of the 1973 Arab embargo, which ushered in the age of energy upset.

Since January, gasoline prices have risen by about 45%, to a current national average of $1.01 per gal. Daniel Lundberg, whose Lundberg Letter is widely regarded as the most reliable gauge of gasoline marketing trends, figures that prices are poised to jump to $1.18 per gal. by year's end, a startling 17% rise in a little more than a month. Reason: with the troubles in Iran, big industrial users of oil as well as gasoline will now begin building up their stockpiles and tightening the market, sending prices soaring. That will put a pinch on the already strained budgets of families everywhere, but especially for people whose homes are warmed by heating oil.

Supply problems will be real enough for the oil companies that must abide by the Iranian embargo or risk losing their deliveries altogether. Because not every refinery can process all grades of crude, oilmen face logistical headaches in trying to switch about their Iranian and non-Iranian supplies. That is especially true for the four American companies providing nearly all of the 700,000 or so barrels of Iranian oil that until last week had entered the U.S. each day. Amerada Hess, the largest single supplier, delivered about 200,000 bbl. of the total. Much of it was processed at the company's refinery at St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, then transshipped to mainland U.S. ports. Among the other big suppliers, Gulf Oil provided about 135,000 bbl. a day, Ashland Oil shipped about 100,000 bbl. and Exxon averaged around 70,000 bbl.

Nearly half the total deliveries entered as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene and other products from refineries throughout the Caribbean. Now much of the loss will have to be made up by having companies divert non-Iranian oil to the Caribbean refineries, while sending the Iranian crude to European refineries instead. That will mean steeper prices for Europeans because much Iranian oil is being sold at prices far above the official OPEC maximum.

Late in the week Iran further complicated the situation by declaring that American companies would no longer be permitted even to buy Iranian crude, let alone deliver it to the U.S. The petroleum will be sold instead to any non-U.S. oil companies that want it, leaving the U.S. firms to scrounge on world markets for whatever available non-Iranian cargoes turn up.

Oilmen are fearful that Iran will soon go a step further and simply cut back its production by a flat 700,000 bbl. With the world market tight, any such reduction would push up prices sharply, especially for single shipment cargoes that are sold on the so-called spot market, where more and more of the world oil trade now takes place.

Escalating spot market prices are, if anything, a bigger threat to the world economy than is the ever present danger of a cut in supplies. With spot prices now hovering at $40 or more per bbl., nearly twice the maximum official OPEC price of $23.50 for oil sold under contracts of three months or more, OPEC members are clamoring for a hefty new increase when the cartel meets in Caracas on Dec. 17. Notes a top Carter Administration official: "Spot prices are the locomotive now dragging OPEC prices along." Adds Data Resources' Eckstein: "Our present forecast has OPEC prices going to $26 per bbl. during 1980, as a result of the current situation in Iran, and perhaps $29 in 1981. But if Iran's production shuts down completely, the resulting shortfall would mean that we could well be paying between $35 and $40 long before then."

In fact, an interagency White House task force last week reported that there is a "substantial risk" of a drop in OPEC output of as much as 3 million bbl., an amount just about equal to total current Iranian production. The drop would be caused by expected cutbacks early next year by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria and Libya. Thus oil prices stand to rise considerably even if Iran does not reduce its current production.

If prices go as far as $35 per bbl., the impact on oil inflation and the world economy would be severe. U.S. consumer prices would continue rising at a dizzying double-digit pace, forcing the Federal Reserve to stick by its anti-inflation policy of sky-high interest rates much longer than expected. The almost inevitable result: a deeper recession than so far forecast. Despite slumping growth, the nation's oil import bill, which is projected to total $61 billion this year, would leap to $96 billion in 1980. That in turn would keep the dollar's value dropping, while provoking yet more demands by oil states for compensating price increases. The vicious cycle would continue to drag the economies of the U.S. and the world down and down.

The worst peril is the damage that the Iranian crisis can do to the international financial system that is the lifeblood of the world economy. Nearly all the currency printed or minted by the U.S. remains physically inside the U.S., but an estimated $750 billion in legal claims on that money are held by foreign governments, corporations and individuals as so-called Eurodollar accounts overseas. Many of those accounts, including the bulk of the frozen Iranian assets, are located in the foreign branches and subsidiaries of U.S. banks. The funds are not under the jurisdiction of Washington at all, but of the banks' host countries. The key country is Britain, the major center for the Eurodollar market; banks in Paris, Frankfurt and Geneva also hold large Eurodollar deposits that technically lie outside U.S. jurisdiction.

British authorities seemed willing enough to overlook Washington's apparent transgression of their monetary sovereignty this time around, and Swiss officials left no doubt that they too would cooperate with the U.S. freeze. While stressing that all banks in Switzerland are subject to Swiss law, Swiss National Bank President Fritz Leutwiler declared that Switzerland would not tell its local U.S. banks what to do, implying that if Iran wanted its money, its lawyers could take the matter to court. Said he with a wink: "If American banks in Switzerland holding Iranian dollar accounts follow instructions from headquarters and apply the freeze, there is just nothing we can do."

While governments closed ranks behind the U.S. initiative, some private bankers were troubled that banking itself had become more deeply enmeshed in petropolitics. Remarked a top international financial adviser in London: "We have an awful lot of people worrying that if the Americans can do this today to Iranian money, what is to stop them from doing it with my money tomorrow?"

Bankers fret that other OPEC producers may take Iran's experience as a warning and begin moving their funds quietly out of dollars and into foreign currencies, gold and other assets. So far, there is no sign of that happening, nor is there likely to be. Most governments, those belonging to OPEC included, applaud the tough-minded stand that Washington has taken with the Khomeini regime.

A more realistic worry is that conservative oil producers will see the seizure of Iran's funds as proof of the riskiness of putting assets in any money, in any bank. That would add yet more weight to the growing OPEC feeling that it is smarter to cut production and leave the oil in the ground where it is safe than to turn it into dollars or other paper assets that can be seized. Confidence in the international monetary system was shaky enough before last week's action. Since 1973, the nearly tenfold increase in oil prices has sent an estimated $150 billion cascading into OPEC's coffers. The resulting deficits of the oil-dependent nations have soared, forcing countries to borrow heavily just to pay for their oil imports.

This process, known as petrodollar recycling, has pushed up the debts of the less developed nations to $300 billion. Many nations are so weighed down with debt that bankers are growing wary of lending them more. Yet if they cannot borrow, poor countries will have trouble importing more oil. Without energy, their economies will slump, exports will shrivel, and they may default on existing loans. At the extreme, that would threaten some of the lending banks with failure, and the U.S. Federal Reserve would have to push the money printing presses into overdrive to bail them out by advancing huge loans to the banks. Such a step would amount to the U.S. undertaking to make good for the oil-inflated debts of the world.

Though the immediate crisis facing the world is the direct responsibility of the Ayatullah Khomeini and his pseudo-government in Iran, the danger would not be nearly so grave if the U.S. had not allowed itself to become so dependent on foreign oil. Under the circumstances, there is no guarantee that economic disruption can be avoided no matter what steps the nation takes. But the best hope for avoiding real trauma is to cut consumption, conserve supplies and, at the very least, make do with 700,000 bbl. less of crude per day. Such an effort would put some slack in worldwide petroleum supplies and help restrain prices. More important, it would also show Iran and the world that the U.S. can start breaking its addiction to the demon oil.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.