> 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?
It's hard to prove (let alone even imagine) the negative of this; given that the US has exerted an extrordinary amount of pressure in a dozen directions, can you have any hope of seeing how things would have gone otherwise without such pressure over the last 40 years? I can't.
> They have to sell oil, and their interests are too disparate
> to act as a successful cartel ...
Although that's where the pressure really ramped up: in the wake of the 1973 shock. So: are their interests too disperate, or has the pressure brought to bear by the US made it so?
> (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.
I'm not convinced, notwithstanding public claims to the contrary 'natch, that the policy goal of the US is to ensure "free flow of oil" ... disrupting the possibility for any one actor to control it seems like a much more logical -- and thus "effective" ...? -- goal to have. Kind of like: if I can't control it, no one can.
You have to admit that for being halfway around the world, the US's influence has been bigger probably than if the Middle East was in Kansas.
/jordan