US Middle East policy aimed at access to, not control of, oil
Evidence
In his book Oilcraft, political scientist Robert Vitalis offers a new perspective on the USā relationship to oil in the region. He argues that between the 1940s and 1973, the belief was that US firms operating Middle East concessions would translate into a strategic good for the US state. After 1973, US policy makers talked about guaranteeing access, not control (because the private firms had lost their concessions) over oil. Thus, he argues that it was never about control over oil. ā Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 1113
Categorization
Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims
- XREF: Relates to ch9/ch10 claims that āprotecting Saudi oil monarchy, not democracy, has driven US regional policy since WWIIā ā Vitalisās access-vs-control thesis complicates the standard oil-drives-policy story.
Related
- US Middle East oil policy pursued access, not territorial control (similarity 0.97)
- Gulf oil monarchy security, not democracy, drives US Mideast policy (similarity 0.84)
- Middle East oil control drives virtually every US regional intervention (similarity 0.82)
- Protecting Saudi oil monarchy, not democracy, has driven US regional policy since WWII (similarity 0.82)
- US foreign policy has never genuinely pursued Middle East democracy (similarity 0.81)
- Americaās case for Middle East intervention rested on disputed oil arguments (similarity 0.81)
- US policymakers articulated a doctrine that whoever controls the Middle East controls the world (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- US Middle East oil policy pursued access, not territorial control
#corroborates(1.00) ā Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 1113