Oil Does Not Grease The Path to Future Intentions in The Middle East - Never Did

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jul 9, 2012 at 19:06

To start, while there may be the anticipation that as 'alternative' fuel sources of globalist's projections of the future needs for energy seems to be shaping some economist's forecasts, contrary to the contrary observations of diminishing reliance upon fossils fuels, those kinds of projections are premature at best; worse, they seem to be (to use Dr. Pipe's phrase-belied by several facts) trying to argue the globalist's ideology of minimizing a world structure of heavy carbon footprints by replacement technologies - a political ploy at best. That replacement scenario is compelling for political drama, but has little foundation in face of the true realities of the Middle East.

To be sure, a Middle East after the First World War was considered by many as an arid wasteland with minimal contribution to the industrialized (read Western) world; until oil was discovered. Then, only with the infusion of investment capital from the West, these resources were put on the fast track for development. As the demands for fuel started coming in, the dependencies created a dynamic of commerce that is still not completely understood, even today. But as is pointed out by Dr. Pipes, as dynamic as the fossil fuel umbilical has become for some nations, they are ancillary to the central issue: what does Islam have to do with Israel's existence - the core of the Middle East crisis?

For some, it is strange to think that someone from Israel does not see the conflict Israel has with the rest of the world as anything more than political intrigue that can somehow be resolved with Darwinesque dialogue underwriting a secular approach to obtaining some kind of rationale that would allow Islam to reside peacefully with a Judaica-based government control for Israel. But this is the trend, one that promulgated trading Gaza for peace with Hamas. How's that working out? Further, a realization needs to occur to come to the stranger point - Israel does not exist by natural selection.

The premise that Mr. Miller appears to operate from is that oil is the fuel for the engine that drives the Islamic Revolution in its resolve to eliminate Israel from the scene; and that cannot be too much farther from a practical determination than a 'Two State Solution,' the Road Map for which should never have been drawn in the first place. It has been stated categorically and emphatically that Israel has no standing in the radical fundamentalists' ideology (which has never had oil as its core ideology) and they had determined for themselves a long time ago that they would pledge their lives and the lives of anyone in the way that Israel should be extinguished. They have only on problem; well more than one, but that's a big one. Israel will not go quietly into the night-but her attackers might.

Putting international pressure on resolving some peace deal without leaving Israeli sovereignty intact is a circumstance that will not be peacefully obtained. Too many observers, including those in Israel, do not necessarily agree. The disagreement is so very integrated into the ideologies of Israel's enemies that conflict is the only course to resolution and Iran is at the forefront of the latest adventure, much to the dismay of many. As is noted in another part of this forum, it is thought that if Iran should get nuclear parity, then stability could be achieved. Not only is this scenario just merely hopeful thinking on the part of those who are in agreement, it is patently wrong on the surface of the argument, if for no other reason than the statements of the parties concerned not being founded in fact. Oil futures may interfere from the Western sensibiliites, but not so in the MIddle East except as possibly as a tool of extortion to obtain compliance to Muslim sensibilities.

Now the Arab upheavals are part and parcel to an underlying theme, that of aligning common thinking and ideologies for one reason-to get at Israel. But now there's a complication: Syria's once internal conflict, which started the same as Ghaddafi's Libya, has escalated into an international crisis that Libya never got to; the difference being that Libya never got Russian support. Even in view of Russia's former Soviet support of Syria in the 80's, the question now is why does Russia seem to be investing in a greater share of the Syrian politics; what is there for them to gain? And does PM Putin's visit to Israel lend to the appearance of how to keep Israel backed away while all this is going on?

It is not, and it never was, completely about the oil: oil only brought the competing interests of the East and the West into close proximity in order to bring about a different kind of peace, one that neither side understands now, nor likely never will.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".