> The U.S. simply _cannot_ "dominate" the region as it (for example)
> dominated Latin America for most of the 20th century. Both colonialism
> and neo-colonialism are dead -- but that does _not_ indicate that
> imperialism (under u.s. hegemony for the time being anyhow) is dead or
> even wounded. The U.S. does not need _direct_ control of oil: it needs
> the only the power (a) to prevent any other nation from such control and
> (b) to shut off the supply of middle-eastern oil to any future 'enemy'
> or rival of u.s. imperial hegemony. Strong military bases without
> day-by-day control is sufficient for that.
----------------------------------
You're right. The US can't directly control oil insofar as the commodity is
traded on the open market, and if the Chinese want to buy from the Iraq
National Oil Company, they can do so, and the US can stop that trade only in
the extraordinary event it is ready to go to war, as it did against Japan in
WW II.
Short of that, though, it does routinely install and support governments of its choosing to do its bidding in relation to the supply and price of oil and the exploitation and maintenance of their oil fields by US firms. A lot of the diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq was based on French, Russian, and Chinese concerns that their oil concessions would be taken over by American firms after the overthrow of the Baathist regime. From this perspective, the US still dominates the Middle East, although its multiplying economic and military problems are making it increasingly more difficult.
"Neo-colonialism" referred to the indirect control and exploitation of sovereign states by economic means as opposed to the older direct political control of colonies, so it seems to me that by this definition, it still exists and the the US remains its leading practitioner. Just a quibble; imperialism by any other name is still imperialism.