On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Israel _could_ become more of a liability on a global scale than a
> useful ally in the Middle East. What Japan, China, U.S., Europe _need_
> in the middle east is a 'peaceful' climate guaranteed by a trustworthy
> military force. At one time the Shah supplied the latter. Then Isreal.
> But is its military power _still_ a guaranty of peace rather than a
> center of disturbances? I don't know.
I'm not sure of this, but I've been thinking ever since the first Gulf war that the U.S. is still in the grip of some obsolete ideas about military power and the domination of real estate in the ME. Does it really matter who runs the oil exporting countries? They have to sell oil, and their interests are too disparate to act as a successful cartel (and besides, the awl bidnez is now a global market that no one can really control). The invasion of Iraq didn't do much to assure the free flow of oil - if anything, it destabilized it.
Doug