Canard #1: It's All about Oil

This is the first in a series of post that address various canards--false, unfounded, and misleading arguments or stories--that obfuscate the realities of American policy toward the Middle East. We hear them all the time.

#1 It's All about Oil

We have all heard the cry: “It’s all about oil!” It is a legitimate point to make in 2009 that United States policy in the Middle East is heavily influenced by issues related to petroleum supplies, but that is far too simplistic. History offers the most obvious retort. The West, and even the United States, was involved in the affairs of the Middle East long before the age of petroleum. It's not as if Vasco de Gama rounded the horn of Africa in 1497 in search of oil.

Even the United States, a relative newcomer to the Middle East, has been involved in the region since the late eighteenth century. We signed our first treaty with a Muslim state—Morocco—in 1784. No oil was involved. Algerine depredations in 1793 led the new Federal Congress to re-establish a U. S. Navy and Marine Corps in March 1794. No oil was involved. We signed a treaty with Algiers in 1796; the treaty marked the beginning of the American arms trade with the Middle East and served as our first, but far from last, “arms for hostages agreement.” No oil was involved. We fought a war with Tripoli (Libya) between 1801 and 1805. The American fleet blockaded and bombarded Tripoli (not for the last time). No oil was involved.

Even in the twenty-first century only a fool would argue that “It’s all about oil.” After all, if it was, the United States certainly would have sold out Israel decades ago.