<snip>
At any rate, here is Cyrus Bina from "The Rhetoric of Oil and the Dilemma of War and American hegemony" in Arab Studies Quarterly, Summer 1993, vol 15, no 3:
"As I have explained above, since 'cheap' oil and 'expensive' oil no longer exist in the eyes of the global market, one begins to wonder about the motivation of a 'attaching' a special priority to Middle Eastern oil. Moreover, while the differential cost of Middle Eastern oil is sizable, it never the less apppears as differential rent in the global price. The remaining motivation therefore is to divert a good deal from this sum (i.e., Arab oil rent) in order to finance the various US expeditions in Africa or Central America by the Saudis in the 1980s. This of course has nothing to do with oil pricing or the necessity of oil for Western economies. It certainly has everything to do with the milking of certain client states in the region in order to perpetuate the global system.
"Despite all this, in objecting to the recent war in agains Iraq, certain commentators pointed out that 'The military alternative to energy efficiency isn't cheap...[They further emphasized that] counting military costs, Gulf oil now costs in excess of $100 a barrel." the conclusion that they have come up was to urge the US govt to cut down on its 'dependency' on Middle Eastern oil. In addition to the liberals, the radical left too argued the same way. Beneath the reasonable appearance of such arguments, however, are two unreasonable and false premises: (1) that global production and pricing are arbitrary, often determined (through conspiracy and intrigue) by a few Middle Eastern oil sheikhs or the shahs, in conjunction with the US state dept, thereby distorting and overestimating the role of the US govt and its client regimes; and (2) that the US govt and its represenatives are too stupid to realize that producing oil in this manner is un-economical, thereby distoring and underestimating the reality behind the US global mission. By accepting the false premise of threat to our survival, the entire political spectrum, including the radical left in this country, tried (and are still trying) to come up with a viable solution according to delcared ideological positions. Some opted for the outright invasion of the oil fields, others for the protection of notorious regimes. Still others proposed conservation, increased energy efficiency, and a balanced energy and environmental policy. Regardless of their conclusions as well as their intentions, nearly all have missed the point of that the need for oil is a sideshow."
Rakesh