>I don't know much about the economics of oil industry. But you mean it is
>not in the US interest to weaken, if not break-up, OPEC?After Iraq is
>subjugated, the focus could shift to Iran. With Central Asia already under
>the US hegemony, the entire area would be open for the US oil interests.
>With the US Navy dominating Indian ocean, the US would strengthen its power
>vis-a-vis Japan, China. This is very much the conventional view of the US
>policies in the Persian Gulf.
>
>US war on terrorism is being used by Asian nations to deal with domestic
>problems: Russia (Chechnya) , China (Xinjiang), India (Kashmir), Nepal
>(Maoists), Sri Lanka (Tamils), Philippines etc. Plus the US is the principal
>market for much of Asia. Who can challenge the US?
No one. But what you say isn't really an "economic" argument in the sense of military Keynesianism (i.e., the fiscal stimulus coming from big arms spending). It's about the political control of oil. I think this is more the obsession of the oilmen around Bush, and not the whole of U.S. capital. U.S. capital-as-a-whole wants a reasonable and stable oil price, while oil interests might be happy to see much higher prices. No doubt the oilmen also lust after reversing the nationalizations of oil - to get back to the good old days when Standard Oil owned ME crude outright. I don't think the rest of U.S. industry shares this passion, though they're probably not opposed to it either.
Doug