The Guardian - Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions. As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country's position as the world's fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.
"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.
This is one of the giant drawbacks to war with Iran. Unlike Iraqi's oil at the time of invasion, Iranian oil is on the global market. If they took that oil off the market during the war (as would almost certainly be the case) it would impact gas prices around the globe. Higher gas prices have a negative impact on the economy, so Iran could bring the cost of war with them home to the people in way that never happened with Iraq.
Would higher gas prices be worth it to keep a nuke away from Iran? I think so, but public opinion is a fickle thing. Were we to go to war in Iran how long could American leadership expect the people to tolerate those high prices before support for the war begins to erode? How long, in fact, until opposition party politicians (read: Democrats) are playing on that dissatisfaction for political gain, forsaking sound foreign policy for the sake of gaining more power in government?
Any war with Iran, be it spearheaded by American forces or international forces, is going to have economic consequences for the whole world. Of course, as far as America is concerned, if our oil companies had been allowed to develop domestic oil sources (like ANWR, for instance) we wouldn't be in a situation where Iran has such influence over our economy.