>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> >There is a difference between actually cutting off supplies (by
>> >blockade or by some other means) and a permanent threat to do so
>> >that provides leverage to the US.
>>
>> The U.S. could, at any time, cut off anyone's oil supplies.
>
>Yes, if the US wants to fight wars on a permanent basis with the
>rest of the world. Does the US have resources to go to war with
>China, India or Russia? US can't handle Afghanistan or Iraq.
But you had just said that it was the potential threat that was the political lever. The U.S. has the potential to threaten anyone at any time, so the lever is very powerful. I don't get why "control" of ME oil - whatever that means exactly - is so central.