I didn't read all the referenced posts, Buddy, but enough to understand your thinking. I see you have, in fact tried to think it through. I stand corrected on that point.
I thoroughly disagree with your analysis and predictions, though.
As you make clear, oil will be used to finance any conflict. But rather than causing oil prices to drop as you suggest, I'd contend that oil production and delivery facilities would become prime targets for all sides of the conflict. This would cut off 15-30% of the world's oil, and oil prices would go through the roof, which would cause untold hardship on smaller and poorer nations, possibly inciting more conflict.
And, many nations would seek to assure the flow of oil to themselves by aligning with one side or another of those directly involved in the conflict. One way or another, the rest of the would would be forced to get involved in such a conflict, merely for economic survival.
If we could put the Mideast in a box where only oil could get out, and nothing else in, I'd partially agree with your analysis, and concede that in a hundred years or so, they'd fight themselves into peace. But such is not the way of the modern world.
Back in the '70s, Jimmy Carter declared the Mideast as a region of our national interest, and specifically stated that it was in the interest of the US to prevent anything that would stop the flow of oil from that region. It was so then, and it remains so today. |
