vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think there will always be U.S. interest in the Middle East.
Well, you may be right, Zonie. And perhaps I am being too optimistic about new energy resources like methane hydrate. The Japanese are pursuing its production vigorously off their own shores. The US and other nations have start up research programs.
quote:
Oil was an important commodity during World War II, but my recollection is that Persian Gulf oil was still in a developing stage. There have been other areas of the world with significant oil reserves. The Arabs are/were not the only game in town. That's where I run into trouble accepting the "it's all about oil" position that many people take when explaining our Middle Eastern policies. The world oil supply is not confined to the Middle East or even OPEC. If America has a policy of subverting and/or invading countries for the purpose of taking their resources, we might have tried finding easier places in the world to do that.
The top three oil producing countries are Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States.[51] About 80 per cent of the world's readily accessible reserves are located in the Middle East, with 62.5 per cent coming from the Arab 5: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait. The key words are: accessible reserves. New technology has made tar sands and shale oil/gas more accessible. Methane hydrate is quite promising apparently.
Churchill's decision to convert the fleet to oil burners in 1908 was quite impactful. The availability of oil in the Middle East was always known, however, it did not influence politics or economics until Winston Churchill, prime minister of the United Kingdom, decided to create a new generation of battleships fueled by oil instead of coal in 1908. Actually, he was Lord of the Admiralty at the time. "This decision had a massive impact on geopolitical and economic concerns. With this decision, the success and importance of the newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company was guaranteed and the world’s dependence on oil was initiated. Due to relative power considerations, all other battleships were rendered obsolete and so with one swift move, oil became a crucial, yet external resource.[1] The United States later described oil as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history,” reflecting it’s huge importance.[3]"
The Ottoman Turks were so impressed with the Kaiser and his military/industrial forces they joined on the side of Germany in World War I. Big mistake, as it turned out. It was that decision that led to the current chaos in the region. "But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf."
I am not trying to tutor you here, Zonie. I am exploring this 'new' historical information for myself mainly. So, also from the same source:
"The origin of American economic involvement in the Middle East, particularly with regards to oil, dates back to 1928 with the singing of the Red Line Agreement. This was preceded by the founding of the Turkish Petroleum Company, which was created with the intention of exploring and extracting oil within the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, after the discovery of a large oil field in Iraq in 1928, the issue of distribution arose. Each of the large powers – France, the United Kingdom, and the United States – worried about being edged out by the other two. The Red Line Agreement was eventually signed, giving the Near East Development Corporation, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Royal Dutch/Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles each 23.75% of any oil that was produced by the Turkish Petroleum Company.[4] The Near East Development Corporation represented American interests and included Jersey Standard Oil, Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Gulf Oil, the Pan-American Petroleum and Transport Company, and Atlantic Refining. The remaining 5% share went to an Armenian businessman, Calouste Gulbenkian, who had previously owned shares within TPC. The more important provision of the Red Line Agreement was that none of the four parties could develop any oilfields from the Suez Canal to the Iran, with the exception of Kuwait (the area that the TPC had jurisdiction over), unless that party gained support and approval from the other three.[4] Thus, the United States broke into the oil market in Iraq and later into the rest of the Middle East. Eventually, due to the aligning of Prime Minister Rashid al-Gilani with Germany, the West, particularly Great Britain, gained open access to Iraq. However, WWII left the UK weakened and unable to retain its dominance in the region, and as such the Truman and Roosevelt administrations were able to achieve their top priority, monopolizing oil in the region.[5]"
The article goes on to briefly relate the history of our involvement in the development of oil in Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is all pretty interesting and makes a strong historical case for the importance of oil as the central issue of our mucking about in the ME.
In Iran for example: "Eventually, this conflict over oil revenues led to the full nationalization of oil by Prime Minister Mosaddeq in 1951.[7] This resulted in the Iranian coupe of 1953 in which the American CIA and British MI6 performed a joint operation overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddeq in what is known as Operation Ajax.[8]"
In Saudi Arabia: "Perhaps one of the most significant moments in American economic involvement in the Middle East came in 1933 with Ibn Saud, founder and king of the new Saudi Arabian kingdom awarded concessions to the American company, Standard Oil of California. While the British had been the main western power involved in the Middle East up until this point, this momentous decision signified the main turning point in American relations with Saudi Arabia and later with more Middle Eastern nations. Standard Oil of California ended up becoming the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO) after it merged with Texaco and Socony.[1] Thus, the interests of the United States were intertwined with the interests of the Saudi Arabian monarchy."
quote:
We also could have devoted more resources to researching and developing alternative sources of energy. If we had gotten off the dime back in the 1970s when we got the wake-up call (energy crisis), if we put more money into researching solar, wind, and other forms of energy production, we might have been much further along in our development of those technologies by now. To add to that, a lot of people didn't like coal because of the environmental consequences (although coal is still widely used), and nuclear was considered too dangerous (especially after Three Mile Island). So, we're pretty much stuck with burning oil for now.
That may be so but these alternate sources do not have the energy density of petroleum and as more carbon energy reserves are found the price will remain low and the low price will act as a barrier to development of alternate energy.
quote:
The other complication is that much of our Middle East policy was also due to its proximity to the Soviet Union and our Cold War security concerns. Apart from its oil wealth, the Middle East also has significance for its strategic location as the crossroads of three continents. When the eastern trade routes were cut off from Europe in the 15th century, we had to find some way around it, which propelled us into the age of exploration.
The geopolitics of pipelines and transport are certainly worth considering. More important than the relgious issues I think, but I never ignore religion as a motivational force in human behavior.
quote:
I think the Middle East will always be significant to the West, with or without oil being a factor.
Maybe so. However, it is difficult to imagine while we are immersed in the news and history evolving everyday that things will someday be different. Current events make it difficult to sort out future alternatives. We like to stick with the familiar. Much more comfortable that way but that comfort leads us into fallacious reasoning. Things change even if we cannot imagine them doing so. We shall see. Well, those who are around then will see the future. Again, apologies if I laid out too much information above.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 6/3/2013 5:49:49 PM >
|
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread