US Oil Boom Scrambles Mideast Calculus

U.S. Oil Boom Scrambles Mideast Calculus

Syria's civil war increasingly threatens to metastasize into a regional conflict, as Hezbollah fighters join the battle on the side of Syria's government, prompting the Syrian opposition to return fire directly into Hezbollah's home base in Lebanon. Calls for the U.S. to get involved persist. 

Meanwhile, another interesting news development looms. Government projections show that in September, for the first time in almost two decades, the U.S. will produce more oil than it imports. Nor will that be a fluke; the trend is expected to continue, and domestic oil production is expected to outstrip imports by an increasingly wide margin throughout 2014. 

These two developments may seem unrelated, but they are not. The worsening situation in Syria raises the question of whether the U.S. will feel compelled to do something militarily to help end the rule of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, though, declining U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil raises the question of whether Americans will find it ever harder to see the point of getting involved in that messy region. 

Syria itself is an exceedingly marginal oil producer, so its direct role in the energy picture isn't an issue in calculating America's interests there. 

But for four decades, a broader calculus has been at work: Americans' crying need for Arab oil meant it had to be constantly involved in the quest for stability and influence throughout the Middle East. The U.S. thirst for imported oil meant it needed allies and influence in the region, whether that meant billions of dollars in aid to friendly Arab countries, or a constant search to broker a deal for the Palestinian independence that Arabs demanded, or a military presence somewhere, anywhere. 

It would be shorted-sighted in the extreme to think these imperatives are simply vanishing because of a shift in oil production. The dream of complete American energy independence remains "illusory for the time being," notes Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations who now is a vice president at the Wilson Center. 

More importantly, Mr. Miller adds that "we'll always have a vital interest in energy security. That is to say, given that oil is sold, or not, in one [global] market, we still have a stake in ensuring no disruption, and that our allies in Europe and Japan have access, and that no hostile power controls this resource." 

Beyond that, of course, the U.S. has a profound interest in ensuring that failed states in the region don't become incubators of Islamic terrorism, and in preventing a globe-rattling surge of nuclear proliferation that could be set off if Iran produces a nuclear weapon. 

In short, bugging out of the region's problems shouldn't be considered an option. Still, there's no disputing that engagement is going to be a tougher sell, one requiring domestic as much as international leadership out of Washington. 

Americans already are feeling war weariness because of the decadelong military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems little doubt that the march closer to energy independence -- brought on by the oil fracking revolution and the related discovery of giant and reachable domestic natural-gas reserves -- has only begun to affect the American psyche. 

That's true because the magnitude of the change is only starting to sink in. As oil analyst Daniel Yergin has pointed out, U.S. oil production is up 43% since 2008 -- a daily increase that is nearly equal to all of Nigeria's oil production. 

Is that affecting President Barack Obama's decision-making on Syria? There's no direct evidence of that. Mr. Obama offers other plausible reasons for his reluctance to get involved, principally the fear that even a small American intervention ultimately could require a much larger commitment to ensure Mr. Assad's departure -- and that once the U.S. is involved in breaking down Syria, it will assume principal responsibility for the arduous task of putting the pieces back together again. 

Still, Middle Eastern leaders, never noteworthy for their broad vision or foresight, would be wise to take note of the way the political landscape could change as the energy component of that landscape is altered. They can no longer assume that Washington can be easily lured, or simply blackmailed, into helping fix the region's messes. For decades, dependence on foreign energy went a long way toward holding at bay the American public's traditional isolationist tendencies; there's no guarantee that will continue. 

At the same time, America's leaders assume some new obligations of their own. They will need to better explain why the U.S. can't afford to simply exit the region's affairs. "We need the oil" won't be a sufficient rationale any longer. But there are other, less obvious reasons -- principally terrorism, nuclear proliferation and the overall health of the oil-fueled global economy -- for America to remain engaged.

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


Click on the button below to add a comment.
Post a Comment
Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.
Yoder | Jun. 27, 2013
Do you want to help the economy lets start exporting natural gas and start drilling for natural gas. The economy will get better their will be thousands of jobs available and the American people will get richer if their willing to work. So lets get off our duff and make this happen.

clarence | Jun. 18, 2013
While it may be difficult in these turbulent economic times to ignore the fact that the rich are getting richer, in large part due to the misquided appropriation of the "bail out" funds, one cannot deny that the United States is the protector of the world. We should not allow ourselves to become so jaded so as to believe that our involvement in global conflicts is solely due to our thirst for oil and the almighty dollar. While I am not na´ve, I choose to believe that there does exist some truly responsible politicians and foreign policy makers, who tirelessly strive to insure that all the peoples of this planet are treated humanely and to insure that no country be allowed to act in such manner so as to threaten our very existence.

Vineet Kumar | Jun. 9, 2013
The fact that energy requirement is no longer a reason strong enough to help US Leaders in explaining their Syrian intervention to the local citizens is very true. However, it is also true that the reason of "preventing a nuclear breakout or a terrorism endemic in Syria" for US intervention would be extremely difficult for the leaders to explain to their people. The nascent question that I feel might arise from the public is that "Why should are people bleed because of some territorial mess in a country as small as Syria?" Here, a more holistic and broader picture needs to be projected to the public.

Jack Nelson | Jun. 7, 2013
As a 45 year oil industry veteran, and an American, I disagree a little that it has only been 2 decades that the US has needed to import more oil than it has produced. I still do not understand why natural gas is not used in more vehicles than it is. I watched the flares offshore in the 1960s, burning off the "unwanted" gas. In 1985 I was a rig manager in Holland and watched people filling their cars with natural gas. My company supplied car was only gasoline powered. Why they did not go with the lower priced fuel I do not know. As they paid the bill I did not ask. In Brazil, 2005, again with a company provided, gasoline powered car, I decided to check prices. As an example gasoline 1, diesel 0.75, ethanol 0.60, natural gas 0.50 Brazil has been self sufficient since 2003. I know because I was there when the President visited a rig in the same field mine was working in. In the 1970s I was in Singapore, reading a Time magazine article about Americans importing German made diesel powered cars. Why? Engine maintenance is lower cost, fuel costs were 0.75% of gasoline. A month later the price for diesel fuel jumped to .01 cents a gallon less than gasoline. Many protests by independent truckers, who saw their costs increase. Why did it happen? Ask the car manufacturers, who were not producing any diesel powered cars at the time, the politicians, and perhaps the money making oil companies, importing oil and refining and selling it in the US.

Gary | Jun. 5, 2013
I agree with all of the above but not to the extent that we, the US, should not export for profit any and all excess natural resources for profit. We have been exporting US wealth for generations and now is perhaps the occasion to get some of it back while employing Americans. This is a Win Win for the US and we should take every advantage of it.

Philippe | Jun. 5, 2013
This article is Excellent with deep consequences for the foreign policies of this administration and future administration. In as much as the present US government refuses to accept the economic benefices of the new shale oil revolution, none the less, the US O&G revitalize market, is and will change the economy. The only potential question that has to be raised is the Israeli security! Without regional US involvement, Israel security could destabilize the region.


Our Privacy Pledge

Most Popular Articles

From the Career Center
Jobs that may interest you
Accountant - Intercompany
Expertise: Accounting
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Field Clerk
Expertise: Purchasing
Location: Midland, TX
Cost Accountant
Expertise: Accounting
Location: Ville Platte, LA
search for more jobs

Brent Crude Oil : $50.2/BBL 3.29%
Light Crude Oil : $47.89/BBL 3.34%
Natural Gas : $2.94/MMBtu 1.37%
Updated in last 24 hours