Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I've read about Haj before. He's a good glimpse at what the alternative to today's middle-eastern power structure could have looked like. The status quo is not perfect by any stretch. And we're not blameless. But as in many other cases of lamenting American involvement, it's important to look at what the realistic (as opposed to fantasmical) alternatives were.
Except the U.S. and British involvement in the Middle East for oil had very little to do with not allowing the Axis powers to get it. That just happened to be a consequence of the geopolitics during World War II because the Nazi's wanted to restrict Soviet access to oil in the Caucuses because it would hinder any move they could make into Europe. It would be very hard to argue given historical facts that Germany ever had an interest on monopolizing Middle Eastern oil like we or Britain did.
The alliance Germany had with highly-esteemed Arabs and their respective nations was due to mutual interest in uprooting and eradicating Jews. The Arabs weren't interested in Germany having free-for-all access to their resources, nor would they ever let them. There are various instances throughout this time frame that illustrate that point emphatically. They went with the Axis because of the old reliable, "The enemy of the enemy is your friend."
Instead of being greedy, the United States should have learned from the British failure in the Middle East and Asia and just stayed the heck away. It is of no surprise, that we are targeting the exact same geographic regions the country that the founding fathers all abandoned. Funny how **** works. The more things change, the more they stay the same.