Thanks for raising some pretty important questions.
First, Saudi Arabia belongs to OPEC, which is a rent-collecting agency. The price of oil is determined globally via the spot and futures markets. So, OIL PRICE DETERMINATION, not attempt to determine prices, belongs to larger forces that are beyond a rent-colleting entity. The US engagement of the early 1990s with Iraq stems from the US reaction against its loss of global hegemony via the Pax Americana's implosion. If even the entire Saudi Arabia were taken over by Saddam Hossein, the long-run price of oil would not have changed significantly. So, both the popular left and the conservative right are wrong on that note.
Second, the 'US ruling class' is seeking to restore its global hegemony. However, the cry for oil is a convenient shorthand for it. Yet, the hegemony is gone by the 'grace' of GLOBALIZATION in which social capital (i.e., global social relation) is hegemonic rather than a single nation.
Cyrus
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: "Cyrus Bina" <binac at mrs.umn.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:26 AM Subject: more questions
> Cyrus -
>
> More questions from listmembers.
>
> Doug
>
> At 7:55 PM -0500 11/5/01, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> >I'd ask Cyrus Bina two questions: (1) Even if no one controls the price
> >of oil, surely Saudi Arabia wields a lot of clout through its control
over
> >the currency oil is priced in and where it invests its surpluses. Didn't
> >David Spiro say these are the two best answers to the question of why the
US
> >waged war on Iraq in 1991? And (2) The US ruling class spends a lot of
time
> >scrutinizing and hand-wringing over the future of the Saudi monarchy. If
it
> >doesn't really matter who controls oil, are they just deluded, like the
> >oil-fixated leftists Bina criticizes?
>