Tags
America, American Liberty, balance of power, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, end of oil, EU, Facebook, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Malaysia, Middle East, Military, Muslim, Muslims, oil collapse, oil price, oil prices, oil saudi, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, United States, War, Weapons
The collapse of the price of oil over the past few months has sent shockwaves through an already vulnerable global economy, slowing the ascent of China, threatening the recovery of America, and causing stock markets from London to Shenzhen to wobble precariously on their foundations. But surely no part of the world is more affected by fluctuations in the oil market than the Muslim Middle East, specifically the nations of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates of the Persian Gulf.
If the downward trajectory in oil prices continues for just a few more years, the economies of these countries will be plunged into crisis, their social order, military upkeep and political power undermined and potentially destroyed. And there is something else to consider in all this. Seeing as oil and Islam have been locked in a very profitable alliance for the past 50 years, what will this decline mean for the civilizational balance of power? Can Islam’s political and military ascendance survive the shock of a post-oil era?
Optimists imagine that without oil, states like Saudi and the UAE would be without influence in the world. Since their economies are based entirely on energy revenues, they reason, such countries would – in the case of an oil collapse – be reduced to the diplomatic grade of Burkina Faso or Zimbabwe. This is not entirely accurate. While it is certainly true that without oil the nations of the gulf will see a massive decline in standards of living, this will not necessarily mean the end of their mischief-making in world affairs. Saudi Arabia, to take a prominent case, has invested much of its gargantuan wealth in blue-chip Western companies – companies which will continue to reap the Saudi state considerable profit for as long as they are trading. The Saudis have also purchased an astonishing array and quantity of modern weaponry, including – according to some – nuclear missiles from Pakistan. This military power will in the short term (or with nuclear weapons, in the very long term) guarantee the country a louder voice than it deserves.
As for Iran, Saudi’s arch-enemy, the outlook is rosier in some respects, and murkier in others. Since the revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced the boycott of its energy industry by much of the developed world. This has meant that Iran’s state finances have remained in poor shape, and also that they haven’t managed to buy up stocks in Western companies to the extent that Saudi has. On the other hand, this long period of boycott has forced Iranians to build an economy unreliant on the energy sector – a post-oil economy, if you will – and this will give the country a very important head start in the rush to regional economic diversification. The same is also true of Iraq, which has until very recently functioned without a petroleum economy.
Taken overall, the Islamic world will only face a sub-regional decline in diplomatic power from the collapse of oil. Outside of the oil-producing area itself, many Islamic countries have high economic growth rates even without energy reserves – these include the nations of Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia, all of which also possess considerable military strength to increase their bargaining power. Thus, the collapse of oil will sink Islamic power in the short-term, only for the power lost to be replenished later in different places. Given that these places will be less extreme than Saudi and Iran, the prospect for a general moderation of Islam is very real, if hardly as curative as liberal commentators would have us believe.
Here in the modern world, the end of oil politics is surely something to celebrate. A nasty and corrupt stench is about to be cleared from the air. The Islam-Oil alliance, even in so brief a period as it has existed, wrought real damage on the world at large. It is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America, as well as for the crippling of Western economies in the 1970s. It has perverted American and British politics, enriched soulless monarchs and dictators, and radicalised much of the Islamic world against its will.
Good riddance.
D, LDN
Defend the Modern World 
The oil age is definitely coming to a close in 20-30 years.
Will be interesting to watch the geopolitical shifts.
Will the Saudis have the same influence then which they have now.
Will Western politicians finally come off their appeasement towards the Wahabbis?
Definitely will be interesting to watch!
LikeLike
A lot of it rests on how Saudi manages the decline. If they splurge all their revenues into investments (and if those investments are good), they will survive with a reasonable standard of living. Not the stand they enjoy at the moment, but above the regional average. My guess is that the Saudi state will become progressively more belligerent towards Iran and the Shia minority within the Kingdom itself. It’s common for people (and states) to lash out at third parties when they experience misfortune.
LikeLike
I agree. God forbid the West is given this explanation without the typical anti-Americanism you speak of in the very next article, afterwards!!
Obama uses Kennedy’s words on space development in other areas, but he would’ve hit the nail on the head using JFK’s space program argument for ending the oil wars, instead.
LikeLike
Obama has refused to push ahead on shale extraction with the speed necessary to make the US fully independent. That’s one of his greatest failures.
LikeLike
Oh i agree… Acquaintances in the energy industry told me this over 10 years ago that the mismanagement of this transition from oil/gasoline to “green” will spell revolution in many, many places, especially in Western countries. We need shale as an intermediate, at minimum, until clean & green runs itself. These people were not bureaucrats, but they dealt with bureaucrats, as well as industry people in foreign countries. They were definitely in-the-know and not just saying it (all retired by now).
LikeLike
I think green energy will come about sooner rather than later. The application of nanotechnology, for example, will permit the conversion of natural forces to energy.
LikeLike
hopefully we’ll evolve as we’ve always had… from whales and horses to what we’re using today… all in due time. but the political implications are obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed.
LikeLike
Few people mention it.
LikeLike
“Few people mention it”
True
This website mentions it in detail. It’s a very convincing and detailed argument as to why (almost) complete green energy is closer than we think.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the eco-left will ever embrace genuine solutions. If we invented a source of endless clean energy, some extreme greens would seek to destroy it.
LikeLike
The Eco-left are nothing but Communists in a green uniform. After their ‘classless utopia’, the Soviet Union fell and it’s incompetence was exposed, some of these hardline communists, instead of accepting defeat, migrated into other ‘anti-capitalist’ movements like the greens.
However, the advance of science and technology is unstoppable, especially in the age of Internet, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence and the Eco-Communist ‘watermelons’ will be discarded in the dustbin of history, to use their own phrase.
LikeLike
One of the problems with facing down the eco-left is that they have the backing of many scientists (‘climatologists’ – qualified in a very young, as yet dubious discipline). This gives eco-communists the ability to portray their opponents as ‘anti-science’ or ignorant.
LikeLike
The argument must be repeated that climatology is not yet a valid science. Its predictions are usually inaccurate. One can have a PhD in astrology, and yet have no right to a public platform. Likewise with climatology – until it at least proves its worth by making accurate predictions.
LikeLike
I have nothing against Climatology as science. It’s a genuine science like any other. But, I’m suspicious of ‘climatologists’ with an agenda.
LikeLike
I will respect climatology when it makes an accurate prediction about the climate.
LikeLike
If trying to understand climate objectively and without any pre-conceived conclusions is a science, then climatology is a science, in that narrow definition.
But, if the watermelon Enviro-reds, with an agenda that says ‘Capitalism causes Climate Change’ have hijacked it and call themselves ‘climatologists’ then the ‘climatology’ practiced by them caeses to be a science and becomes politics.
LikeLike