America’s case for Middle East intervention rested on disputed oil arguments

Evidence

The supply of oil is a more complex business. Some argue that whoever controls the oil will have to sell it and that we need not therefore concern ourselves with regional political squabbles. Some, while recognizing that such squabbles might endanger the supply, nevertheless maintain that since other countries—notably in Europe and the Far East—consume a far larger proportion of Middle Eastern oil than does the United States, it is their responsibility to maintain order. There is however some doubt whether they have the will or the power to discharge this responsibility. The prevailing view is that only the United States is able to maintain political stability in the oil-producing countries and, in particular, to prevent the monopolization of Middle Eastern oil by an aggressive dictator. This, it is argued, requires the protection of existing regimes, at least from external attack. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 1658

Categorization

• XREF: Documents how the oil-imperative rationale was itself internally contested among American policy voices (Europe/Far East consume more) — evidence against monolithic ‘oil drove everything’ claims on both the left and right. — connects to: US Middle East policy aimed at access to, not control of, oil