The revolution in fossil fuels recovery will change how we look at the world:
But as I argued in a Washington Post editorial earlier this year regarding fears of a prolonged price spike due to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, world markets are increasingly able to absorb oil supply shocks. That means that Americans can worry less about the domestic impact of Middle East instability. And that’s vital for everyone, including America’s presidential candidates and Iran’s mullahs, to understand.
That is, the change in the oil market means that we no longer need to be so fearful that any change in the status quo of the Middle East will interrupt the oil supply from the Middle East and plunge the West into recession.
This is good. But reduced dependence on Middle East oil doesn't mean we can walk away from the Middle East. As long as jihadis are drawn from way too many Islamists who also intimidate more reasonable Moslems from resisting the jihadis, the Middle East will always be an exporter of murdering fanatics who hate us.
After all, if we ever arrived at the day when we don't need Middle Eastern oil, imagine how jihadis will react?
[If] you want to talk real anger, think of what Zawahiri would say if we actually could stop buying oil from the Middle East. Talk about anger! Talk about inciting talk of plots to impoverish them? What else have they got that we want?
So they'll pull us back in to the Middle East. On the bright side, we'll have more options for action--both direct and in pressuring local governments to take action to defeat jihadis and combat Islamism.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people here who will argue about how understandable it is that jihadis are angry with us for not buying their oil. Heck, they might even apologize for using windmills too much.
