So, at the end of the day, all you have left is oil. Their need to sell it and our need to buy it.
True enough, but at the end of the day there wasn't much more to the Gulf War. I can't see where the Kuwaitis were any more democratic or sympathetic to our values than the Saudis are. Maybe a little more decadent and a little less theocratic than the Saudis, but pretty much the same arbitrary semi-feudal family monarchy. My recollection is most of the native population was out of the country when Iraq invaded, August not being the most pleasant time in the Gulf.
The US could, in principle, do something about our need to buy it. In practice, given the pre-9/11 Cheney/Lay collaboration on energy policy, and the post-9/11 "Hydrogen fuel cells in 10 years" hypothetical miracle solution on the conservation front, our need to buy it isn't likely to diminish.
Anyway, it's a global market, and the Saudis are the low cost producers. The US could spurn the Saudis, but how much of the world would follow is questionable. I can't, for example, see the pre-9/11 preferred demon of the right, China, turning down cheap Saudi oil.
A funny story: I used to have the pleasure of being represented in Washington by a Senator who must have had the biggest "For Sale" sign in DC on his back. Representing an oilless and not particularly urban or populous upper midwest state, he was supposedly at one time the #1 Senate recipient of both oil and Israeli PAC money. I have no idea how he reconciled the interests of his paymasters, but it couldn't have had much to to with representing his constituents. After 12 years, he was somewhat miraculously defeated by the current Senate co-leader on campaign finance reform. |
