where the Iranians rose up against our friend and brutal dictator the Shah of Iran
...and produced that flower of democracy, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who commenced his rule by kidnapping American diplomats and holding them hostage for a year.
Look. We didn't install the Iranian mullahs, or the ibn Sauds, or Mubarak, or Gaddafi, or Assad pere et fils, or Saddam. Their own countries produced them and installed them, and they kept themselves in power. When we chose to work with them, we are "supporting brutal dictators". When we tried to change the most obnoxious regimes, we are "meddling in the Mideast". Either way, the reasoning goes, it's all our fault. Why? Because we're America, that's why!
That's called "damned if you, damned if you don't"
We do have a need to secure our oil supplies. That is not the same as our "need to dominate" that you keep going on about. If we really had a need to dominate, the countries I mentioned would have governments that we installed and would be selling us oil far cheaper than market prices. We could have done this. We have the power. Think about that before your next remark. We did not want to dominate Iraq. If Saddam had kept the terms of the cease-fire, if he had even slightly behaved himself, instead of continuing his WMD programs, lying to the UN, harboring every kind of terrorist, and generally portraying himself as the Great Arab Defier of the Great Satan, then Saddam would still be in power, noxious as his regime was.
we could do far more to reduce our dependence on oil, not just on ME oil
There is no panacea to be found here, short of finding an equivalent alternative. About forty years after someone discovers workable cheap cold fusion, the world will lose its dependence on ME oil. Until then, it's stuck. Unless you'd prefer we follow the French example and build nuclear power plants everywhere? That's really the only viable alternative. |
