You're watching...
Bipartisan Policy Center’s Michael Makovsky breaks down the economic cost of inaction related to oil and nuclear Iran.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Well we we talked to few minutes ago about Iran in this report the New York Times over the weekend saying that for the first time the US and Iran have.
-- to 101 talks over the nuclear program but double the White House and they radiance instead -- cannot denied it.
Still that's something that you would expect we'll definitely come up tonight in the presidential debate on foreign policy and while we're speaking about Iran check these numbers out from a new report from the bipartisan policy center closer look at the economic cost of the US economy for -- -- for -- It's -- nuclear weapon.
The ten dollar hike in oil costing half percent to to GDP growth so.
That's big time Michael McCaskey is that foreign policy director at the bipartisan policy center.
Joins us now from DC you wanna talk -- -- about how you came up with this and and what it means that now that this New York Times report is out there how do you think if -- all that changes the dynamic tonight on Iran terms what they'll.
-- We'll thank thanks for having me I think.
Clearly it's gonna come up even more because of Libya's taken up a lot of the attention on the foreign policy front clearly Iran now we'll take a little more.
Center stage clearly and I think it could come up about exactly what the US could tolerate in terms of Iran's nuclear development.
Writes it makes your report and the one the -- it makes it actually more important in a lot of excuses say.
Our is this just some sort of they debate that we're having out there among foreign policy experts that doesn't matter for us at home.
Or is it something that hate the economy to every day person does -- -- if Iran gets a weapon.
If X then walk you know there's an effective that would you come up with exactly tell us what the economic costs are.
Yes sir look -- to be clear we're not arguing that economic to drive foreign policy don't you think you know strategic issues and human cost to drive the that said we want people recognize or economic costs of -- so put out this report called.
The price of inaction in the way we looked at it we just looked at the energy related economic costs a lot of other kind of -- of collective following nuclear -- -- does look good.
The energy related want your oil go up a lot.
Happily so we said look markets as your audience knows.
-- react not only to changes in supply and demand and expectations of changes in supply and demand we said if there's a nuclear Iran.
A lot of clout plausible scenarios that could file been since the probability is the greater instability of Saudi Arabia because of this year -- there being emboldened.
Greater -- probability of be running in Saudi nuclear exchange -- running the Israeli nuclear standard -- So markets the oil market needs to price in those problems journeys that we said.
Over three years oil prices could rise about thirty to 50% -- gas which is about thirty to 55 dollars.
And that gasoline prices at the pump could go up to about a dollar could -- rise about a dollar forty that's it now.
It's a pretty big cost but the one thing I think it'll come up tonight on this is what's the bigger cost is -- that.
Where's it going to war with Iran to prevent that from happening because that's what would be -- -- thought to bounce right.
Absolutely.
We didn't address that in our report because other investment banks have really looked at what the all market.
Could -- differences JPMorgan just came out with a report recently that suggests that actually the cost of military conflict.
Can be more muted although other investment banks have suggested they could be much higher right we're just saying.
The debate needs to encompass all the cause of action and inaction fair enough what's good stuff especially -- -- tonight give us some perspective on -- we're dealing with Michael McCaskey thanks for coming -- for.
