America and the Middle East

[stui magpie]

^

There's little coherence in your thinking, period. Ptiddy is a smart boy who's opinion carries a lot more weight.

China imports the majority of it's oil from the Saudis, the US imports a poofteenth from them but has strong diplomatic relations with them.

If they want to put the squeeze on China they can just do a deal with the Saudi's to import more of their oil, meaning less for China, and just export the domestic surplus to anywhere but China. They don't need to militarily take over the middle east.

[Magpietothemax]

Philosophically, Stui you are an empiricist. To refute any argument, you just look at something, one so called "fact"" in your immediate situation which appears to contradict that argument, and declare that to be the "refutation". You never seem to look at processes or tendencies. You never seem to view anything by taking into account its history or in its totality. You seem to think that whatever happens to be true right now, at this very moment, is permanent into the future. You might not consciously think that, but your method of argumentation shows that subconsciously you do.

[stui magpie]

^

Whatever. I'd describe you as a Showbag.

You support some socialist doctrine that you say has never been practically tested anywhere, produce links of less than dubious accuracy to support the fiction you believe and generally post rubbish.

You can think what you want of me, it won't disturb my sleep one iota, but facts are facts.

I'm not naive enough to believe that the USA doesn't have strategic intentions likely unknown to the POTUS and has people working to achieve those, but you're just living in cuckoo land.

[Magpietothemax]

[What'sinaname]

Life will be better when Mid East oil is no longer needed.

[Magpietothemax]

[stui magpie]

[David]

This is from 2006 but sums up why you're wrong about this:

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/how-the-demand-for-oil-drives-american-foreign-policy/

[stui magpie]

^

Did you evern look at the links I posted? 2006? FMD, that is so out of date. Look at the first link and see the surge in US domestic production from about 2008 onwards.

New tech such as fracking has opened up fields that in 2006 were considered useless.

Yes Oil is still important in this transition phase, which is why the US maintains it's strong diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for strategic regions, but the US does not need Saudi oil.

I think you're just so ingrained with the rhetoric that every thing the US does in the middle east is about Oil that you fail to comprehend that the situation has changed significantly in the past 15 years.

[LaurieHolden]

Middle East Oil Imports, At 20% Of U.S. Supply 5 Years Ago, Now At 10%

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2023/12/28/80-of-us-oil-imports-come-from-western-hemisphere-for-first-time/amp/

[David]

[stui magpie]

Yeah but shit has changed since 2006.

[pietillidie]

And David, as Stui has said, we all agree as the superpower America has its dirty fingers all over the place. But the difference between 'control' and 'influence' hides a heck of a lot of bad analysis.

Reality, not Cold War tracts we read as teens, should define the extent of that influence. Even going back to the 1950s Iranian coup, Anglo-American efforts to control Iran failed spectacularly, even if it didn't deter them from creating new waves of their own enemies all the way through to Islamic State.

By the time we get to a post-manufacturing economy, and now the rise of green energy in a post-Iraq, multi-polar global political environment, the game has shifted unrecognisably.

America can't win wars anymore because even the measliest opponent can bog them down endlessly. That effects 'influence' far more than you think, because the threat of invasion/punishment/regime change really only has teeth when you know the opponent might trounce you at little cost (i.e., at little military, financial, political, electoral, trade, prestige and reputation cost).

But that can't readily happen anymore. As I say, America even had to flee Afghanistan, for goodness' sake, and has its hands full with its own southern border and natural disasters (global warming being another recent game changer in the equation). It struggles to even pass funding bills to stave off old enemy Russia.

Meanwhile, in a marketised world, supply shocks as we witnessed during and after the pandemic can send us all broke at once by disrupting markets and investment. So even the threat of war in a multipolar world is costly, hence markets even being rattled by the age-old Israel-Palestine flare up. But that's a multi-way impact, so only utterly chaotic Joker-like characters are willing to wield it because it makes too many enemies within.

So, the world has changed so dramatically in all kinds of ways, and the old Marxian/neo-Marxian analysis is hopelessly anachronistic.

The increased independence of the energy supply is one such factor, and why I've long pushed to take it out of the equation with renewable energy. But Putin and the pandemic was the final nail in its coffin; the rise of wind, solar and new battery technology has all but won already.

Also, the interconnectedness of everything means no skirmish is distant, and no skirmish can be kept from view as it could pre-internet; it always bites, including virtual non-events like Benghazi. But Benghazi! Look, Benghazi!
The old analysis based on, say, American interference in Central America during the Cold War, just doesn't hold. Basing an entire theory on it, as if the events of 1950-1990 still describe American power as if we're in a pre-China, pre-BRICs, pre-internet, pre-EU, pre-green energy world, is nonsensical.

Of course, thugs like Putin wield this to their advantage, knowing no one will go all in anymore and he can simply spook markets instead (though, not for long given green energy, which is perhaps why he made a quick grab for Ukrainian territory including its grain fields, as food and water are almost more important now).

This is also why Brexit and Trump's idiotic trade sabre rattling were so incredibly dimwitted and outdated, resulting only in own goals; not only did it pressure British/American supply and prices even as a pandemic doing exactly the same appeared, but the world is so multipolar and interconnected, except in special cases no one trade partner can have too much immediate impact on anyone.

(On a side note, as stated many times in different posts, I think this new reality of America not being able to control everything at will is behind the far-right takeover of the GOP, and the general malaise of backward conservatism, and was also behind Brexit. When reality sinks in, people will start realising not controlling everything is a good thing and has no bearing on their happiness once they stop basing it on thinking they're special beings somehow deserving global rule).

[David]

[stui magpie]

Look, I never said that the middle east and it's oil production doesn't have strategic significance for a number of countries, the USA in particular, which is exactly why they cosy up to the Saudis and Iraq.

But the US won't be fighting any wars in the region to take control of oil production, they clearly don't need to. 20 years ago it was a different matter, if the middle east turned off the oil the USA was fvcked but now they only get 10% of their oil from there and that's more about retaining strategic relationships than "need".

As Ptiddy mentioned, there's a bloody big difference between maintaining a strategic relationship and influencing then seeking to actually control.

Until such time as renewable energy really takes over, which is likely decades away, it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that middle eastern oil is in the hands of people who are sane and able to be reasoned and negotiated with, not a bunch of mad Mullah's.