Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
U.S. and Saudi Relations on Oil
Pose a threat to the stability of Saudi Arabia, as the Shiite upsurges are now doing in Qatif and al-Awamiyah in the country's oil-rich Eastern Province, and you're brandishing a scalpel over the very heart of the long-term U.S. policy in the Middle East. The fall of America's ally, the Shah of Iran, in 1979 only magnified the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia.
In 1945, the chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs wrote in a memo that the oil resources of Saudi Arabia are a "stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." The man who steered the Saudi princes towards America and away from Britain, was St. John Philby, Kim Philby's father, and with that one great stroke he wrought far more devastation on the Empire than his son ever did.
These days, the U.S. consumes about 19 million barrels of oil every 24 hours, about half of them imported. At 25 percent, Canada is the lead oil supplier. Second comes Saudi Arabia at 12 percent. But the supply of crude oil to the U.S. is only half the story. Saudi Arabia controls the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' oil price and adjusts it carefully with U.S. priorities in the front of their minds.
The traffic is not one-way. In the half century after 1945, the United States sold the Saudis about$100 billion in military goods and services. A year ago, the Obama administration announced the biggest weapons deal in U.S. history — a $60 billion program with Saudi Arabia to sell it military equipment across the next 20 to 30 years.
Under its terms, the United States will provide Saudi Arabia with 84 advanced F-15 fighter planes with electronics and weapons packages tailored to Saudi needs. An additional 70 F-15's already in Saudi hands will be upgraded to match the capabilities of the new planes.
Saudi Arabia will purchase a huge fleet of nearly 200 Apache, Blackhawk and other U.S. military helicopters, along with a vast array of radar systems, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and guided bombs.
The U.S. trains and supplies all Saudi Arabia's security forces. U.S. corporations have huge investments in the Kingdom.
Say the words "Saudi Arabia" to President Obama or to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the high-minded prattle about the "Arab spring" stops abruptly. When the Saudis rushed security forces across the causeway and into Bahrein, counseling the Khalifa dynasty to smash down hard on the Shiite demonstrators in the homeport of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the noises of reproof from Washington were mouse-like in their modesty.
Could the uprisings in Saudi Arabia spiral out of control? We're talking here about two different challenges. The first are the long-oppressed Shiite, making up just under a quarter of the population. The second is from the younger generation in the Sunni majority — youth under 30 accounts for two-thirds of the Saudi population—living in one of the most thoroughgoing tyrannies in the world.
In February of this year, perturbed by the trend of events in Egypt and elsewhere, the 87-year-old King Abdullah announced his plan to dispense about $36 billion in welfare handouts — about $2,000 for every Saudi. He correctly identified one of the Kingdom's big problems, which is that over 40 percent of people between 18 and 40 don't have a job.
A few days ago, Abdullah offered Saudi women a privilege — to participate in certain entirely meaningless municipal elections (if approved by their husbands.) What municipal elections can be meaningful amid resolute repression under an absolutist monarchy?
The American Empire has effectively lost Iran and Iraq. What of Saudi Arabia? Suppose, fissures continue to open up in the Kingdom itself? I doubt, at such a juncture, that we would hear too much talk from Washington about "democracy" or orderly transitions. The Empire would send in the 101st Airborne.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



4 Comments so far
Show All"Suppose fissures continue to open up in the Kingdom itself?" Well, it's hard to get ready for gasoline prices going to $12.00 a gallon amid the allegations of oil company price manipulations. I thought that the 101st Airborne Division was already present there. What do you suggest Alex, stop importing petroleum from the Gulf? Not a bad idea, but our absolutistic and tyrannical elites won't let us have a say in that. By the way, even many Saudis accept the idea of peak oil. It scares the bejesus out of me.
Unseen except by a few amid the recent volitility in oil price as denoted by the NYMEX is the large upswing in US gasoline EXPORTS--an oversupply that ought to drive down the pump price yet has barely budged it:
"U.S. crude-oil output in the first nine months rose 1.7 percent, the highest for the period since 2003. Gasoline demand fell 3.7 percent in July to the lowest for the month in 11 years. At a time when ships hauling crude and coal are forecast to lose money for at least another two years, product tankers may break even as early as 2012." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/record-u-s-gasoline-cargoes-seen-driving-17-tanker-rate-advance-freight.html
The increase has led Oil Promoter Yergin (The Energy Expert You Shouldn't Trust, http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters11/The_Energy_Expert_You_Shouldnt_Trust.php) to crow that Peak Oil is again proved to be a fallacy, yet he was promptly proven to be wrong again by a host of analysts who point at the massive disconnect between the NYMEX price and that for Brent and Tapis, which are both still over $100/bbl, that are driven by the reality of declining net-exports/overall increased global demand for a finite product whose suppliers can barely fulfill demand. A short recap can be read here, http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2011/10/three-strikes/
Cockburn is likely correct about US Imperial plans for Saudi, except that the 101st Airborne can only destroy oil infrastructure and kill the workers, not develop or maintain it.
This article is misleading. Only 40% of the US energy comes from petroleum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
The single largest user of peroleum in the US is the PENTAGON! Talk about a circular argument! Downsize the military and our "reason" for importing so much petroleum disappears. Allow the military cancer to keep growing, and we have to fight more wars for more empire and more energy resource protection.
[Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.
In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945).
The U.S. Navy is the largest diesel fuel user in the world, at least in 2005.
DoD occupies over 620,000 buildings and structures worth $600 billion comprising more than 400 installations on 25 million acres in the United States (almost as big as the land area of Virginia or less than South Caroline and New Jersey combined).
According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD. Guess how many countries consume more oil per capita than the DoD? Only three.]
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925
According to Milton R. Copulos, President of the National Defense Council Foundation, the fixed costs of defending Persian Gulf oil amounts to $137.8 billion annually.
Hey Cockburn, we have NO BUSINESS being in the Middle East except to pad some war profiteering pig's bank account.
WE DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SAUDI TYRANTS! The sooner they are overthrown, the better!
yes...