What would happen if, hypothetically, there was no demand whatsoever for Middle East oil (or anyone else’s oil, coal, natural gas or other fossil fuel)? What if all the Middle East had as bargaining chips were, I don’t know, dates, sand, and the Suez Canal?
I realize that section of the planet has incredibly complicated politics, and every country is different. But I wonder what would happen to, say, Israel, if the US didn’t need a friend in that part of the world. What would happen to Saudi Arabia, ditto? Who would bother to supply arms for the various wars? How would any of those countries pay for anything?
What would be the same and what would be different?
My first thought was “No oil, no US, no hatred of the US, no terrorism problem for the US.”
Then I thought, “But Isreal…” With or without oil, we’d be Israel’s big backers in the mideast. Support for Israel would be a much harder sell without oil interests to back it up, but I’m pretty sure compelling-sounding reasons would get invented. (“Domino theory” anyone?)
However, without oil the Mideast would be dirt poor and they’d not have the money to set up expensive terrorist networks. So terrorism would be much less of a problem, 911 would probably never have happened, and everyone would be much happier except for the Arabs of the Mideast, who, let’s face it, do not seem especially disposed to be happy.
You need to define your premise a bit more. I can imagine a huge difference between a Mideast that suddenly, now, could not sell oil, but had an immense fund remaining in banks, compared to a Mideast that never had any oil income. The latter would be dirt-poor in the past and future.
As demonstrated by the UAE, which is quite sensibly trying to use its current oil-derived wealth to build up industries that aren’t dependent on oil, so that it can continue to prosper once the oil wealth is gone. OK, one can argue whether they’re succeeding, but it’s quite sensible for them to try.
I’m not seeing your argument here. Israel has no oil of its own. It’s the countries that oppose Israel that have oil. So it would appear to me that it would be opposition to Israel that would be a much harder sell without oil interests to back it up.
The Middle East (depending on the exact geographic definitions) would still be vastly important, there is no other geographic tie up like it anywhere, its sits on the confluence of three continents.
Sans oil. The Arabian Peninsula would be dirt poor with the exception of the Yemen (which gets monsoon rain and therefore is somewhat more inhabitable). Before the 20th century, Arabia was thought of like Afghanistan; next to impossible for outsiders to controls. The Hejaz part of Saudia Arabia might still be important, less so the rest of the country. Iran and Iraq and Syria have been home to large civilisations for millenia and I expect all three would eventually devlope, although I suspect Iran would be more focused towards the sub continent as it in fact was for the last 500 or so years. Egypt and N Africa continue as much as before.
Interesting…in 1938, Saudi Arabia was one of the poorest countries in the world. King Ibn Saud’s income consisted of the $5/head tax paid by pilgrims to Mecca. He had the only car in the kingdom. There were no paved roads, and one hospital in Riyadh. When SOCAL started drilling wells in the late 1930’s, there was no dock at any port capable of unloading a large cargo ship. All of this is detailed in Wallace Stegner’s book “Discovery”. Now…imagine if Israel had all that oil…
The argument goes: We need a reliable, stable friend in the Mideast to give us a base from which to atta … er, gover … er, negotiate with all those wildly unstable Arab states that would do us dirty in a heartbeat if they felt it was in their interests. So being a friend to Israel is strategically valuable.
Granted, the argument could be made that Turkey and Egypt have both worked with us very well, better than Israel in many respects (settlements, anyone?) but hey, I’m not the one making the argument.
Past thread five years ago. Biggest thought then was that the lack of oil would result in the collapse of authoritarian regiemes and an instable period figuring out what emerged in its place. But of course that is in progress now without oil becoming irrelevant.
Societies can thrive with little in the way of natural resources. Even in today’s somewhat declining form, see Japan as a case in point. But doing so requires developing and leveraging the county’s human capital.
Arab societies did that once upon a time and could do that again. Or they could starve and go to war over resources like water and arable land. They’ve done that before too.
That seems like a pretty weak argument. If we wanted to improve our relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Islamic oil producing countries in the region, the easiest path to it would be to denounce Israel. We’re friends with Israel despite the influence it costs us with OPEC.
I do not think the people who advance such arguments think much of generic goodwill as a way to get people to do your bidding, I think they feel the ability to project military force is much more important, and Israel helps a lot there. And I think, based on what goes on in the Middle East, that the leadership of those countries are prone to make decisions without taking friendship much into account, while taking ability and willingness to use force very much into account.
Of course the Arab Spring may change all that. We shall see.
No way. Iran would have been a richer Afghanistan, looking enviously at its neighbours lands; the Pahlvis never expressly repudiated claims to the sub continent, Bahrain and the West. In many ways Ayatollah’s Iran is better for regional peace than a nationalistic Iran would have ever been with its pipe dreams of “Iranzamin”.
Yeah, like Little Nemo I also don’t put too much credence in people who say US policy in the middle east is primarily driven by oil. During the 60’s and 70’s when pan-Arabism was taking a more leftist course, the US was largely acting to protect the assets of American companies from nationalization, and those assets just so happened to mostly belong to oil companies. Since then, you’d be hard pressed to find any US policy directly aimed at benefiting western oil companies. Trying to maintain some semblance of stability in the region has the side-effect of protecting oil production, but considering that a lot of US policies in the region go directly contrary to that goal, I think it’s safe to say it isn’t the main one.
Now, I do think that oil has fundamentally set the political nature of the region and is indirectly driving a lot of the conflict. Unlike manufacturing or agriculture, oil wealth is easily concentrated, and so it encourages authoritarian government. In places like Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, there’s enough of that wealth that the leadership can dole out enough to keep the population happy and still maintain their own obscene lifestyles, but this isn’t the case in countries with higher populations and less oil like Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. The dictatorships that rule (or until recently ruled) those countries have always been on extremely shaky ground domestically, but the oil wealth gives them weight to throw around on the international stage. Scapegoating Israel and the west has been the preferred tactic to deflect attention away from the gross inequalities that exist at home.
With that in mind, even though there’s no oil in the immediate vicinity, these oil-dependent states have been providing just enough material and political support to keep the hardline Palestinian cause alive. Without oil, those regimes wouldn’t have the ability or need to meddle in the conflict and I suspect it would have been settled long ago.
