[Agamemnon]

I assume the time when "fighting for oil" was optimum would have been in 1973 when OPEC used it as a weapon to try and fit Israel with cement overshoes.

But . . . . Muslim nations found that if they killed the west they also killed themselves.

They are as much a slave to oil as the consuming nations given most Middle East countries only have one economic commodity to sell, oil. It's all they have. What are they going to do? Not sell oil?

I don't think simple resource extraction is the root of discontent in the Middle East. It's not like the revenues from these resources go to the people, or public works. Most of the time it lines the pockets of the exceedingly wealthy regime (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), instead of trickling down to the people of the nation.

The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).

Since then OPEC has been careful to try and manage global oil prices at levels that discourage the economics of alternative sources of energy.

They seem to be actively trying to lower prices at the moment. And Iran, as radical as it gets, appears to be on board with that.

Again, seems to make sense for these regimes not to rock the boat, they're getting wildly wealthy through corrupt practises (in many cases).

Some think a guy like Osama Bin Laden, should his like gain power, would feel Muslim countries sell the commodity too cheaply and would try to drive prices higher.

But that wouldn't be a reason to "fight" for oil either given alternative energy sources or secondary oil sources like Fort McMurray would be rendered more economical.

Where you "fight" for oil is when you derive that the purpose the sale proceeds are used for, WMD as an example, can't be controlled politically.

But is that really "fighting" for oil supplies?

I don't think you need to fight for oil. The supply chain is too diverse and controlled by different political elements that all have one particular commonality - an interest in keeping the gravy train running, regardless of politics.

I think the danger is not that Osama's 'like' will drive up oil prices, but rather, that they won't be beholden to Western commercial interests like the current corrupt regimes. The imams would probably more concerned with what to do with the money for the people, as opposed to simply pocket it. Depends entirely on who gains power I suppose.

I don't think the supply chain is too diverse to control. International sanctions if implemented could completely cripple a countries oil imports. Also, oil is the same price everywhere. It's a whole lot cheaper to suck it out of the sand and put it onto a tanker than get Alberta's oil (much more expensive).

The idea is to have access to the great deals, long term. One doesn't ensure a long-term strategic economic vision by ignoring the advantages that direct and comprehensive control over petroleum assets can provide. Seems to entirely make sense for the US to actively engage, whether militarily or politically, the primary petroleum-producing nations. Some aren't that friendly to the US, like Venezuela. If the right 12 countries got together (OPEC), I'm sure they could have their way with oil prices. That makes it essential for these states to be tied to the US, whether through corrupt oil exchanges, support for their autocracies, etc.

That ramble was so long I don't remember what I was talking about