Oilcraft: The Myths of Scarcity and Security That Haunt U.S. Energy Policy

by Robert Vitalis

A bracing corrective to the myths that have shaped economic, military, and diplomatic policy, dispelling our oil-soaked fantasies of dependence. There is a conventional wisdom about oil—that the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf is what guarantees access to this strategic resource; that the "special" relationship with Saudi Arabia is necessary to stabilize an otherwise volatile market; and that these assumptions in turn provide Washington enormous leverage over Europe and Asia. Except, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Robert Vitalis debunks the myths to reveal "oilcraft," a line of magical thinking closer to witchcraft than statecraft. Oil is a commodity like any bought, sold, and subject to market forces. Thus, the first goal of this book is to expose the suspect fears of oil scarcity and conflict. The second goal is to investigate the significant geopolitical impact of these false beliefs. In particular, Vitalis shows how we can reconsider the question of the U.S.–Saudi special relationship, which confuses and traps many into unnecessarily accepting what they imagine is a devil's bargain. The House of Saud does many things for U.S. investors, firms, and government agencies, but guaranteeing the flow of oil, making it cheap, or stabilizing the price isn't one of them. Freeing ourselves from the spell of oilcraft won't be easy—but the benefits make it essential.

Genres: Politics, Middle East, History, Nonfiction, Economics, The United States Of America, Political Science

240 pages, Paperback

Published March 22, 2022

Reviews

[Elle (ellexamines on TT & Substack) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vitalis's primary argument here is an interesting one: Oilcraft, or the mystical conceit that an oil crisis is just around the corner, bleeds into every US foreign policy decision. Important stats: (A) These threats either are nonexistent or cannot be solved with intervention, and there is no actual fear that any great power will take the Gulf; (B) Oil prices covary with the price of all other primary commodities. Fear is a tool of imperialism. Yet this does not mean the US government is lying when they invoke fears of oil; they do genuinely fear it, they’re just wrong about it. This fear is backed up by the public sharing this exact fear.

It's an interesting article that he does a good job both explaining in detail and explaining simply. I think parts of the argument of this feel somewhat repetitive. Additionally, I found the writing of this book to be self-assured to an almost hilarious degree. I think this is a quirk of Vitalis's writing style, and I found it genuinely entertaining. I think I'd like to get a drink with this man.

Blog | Youtube | Twitter | Instagram | Spotify | About |

[Dante]

This likely should've been an extended essay, as Vitalis circles around and re-articulates his denouncement of 'oil ideology' and its pervasive, mystifying influence over the US elite and public alike, with unecessary repetition over a hundred-plus pages. Although this central contention is well-expressed, and convincingly argued, Vitalis self-certainty is grating, his insufficently substantiated swipes at the 'Left' don't do much to build the strength of his case, and the extended detours into Saudi Arabian political development aren't demonstrated to be particularly necessary for the purposes of his commentary.

[Kai · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fast read and compelling argument. If you have read Vitalis before, you know the biting and self-assured tone - it can be grating at times, but ultimately his argument fits well with my own chapter on new fantasies of oil security and energy independence in pipeline struggles.

[Fabian Z · Rating 4 out of 5]

At first I wasn’t sure if I want to read this book, given its focus on US foreign policy. However, here’s why I’m glad I dived in anyways:

1. US foreign policy focus - yes. But rich in explanations of international connections, actors, prices, political schemes and much more.

2. The author has a view on this issue that runs contraire to the vast majority of analysts and historians, which is great to test current beliefs and/or widen your own horizon.

3. Very dense and difficult topic yet written in a way that makes it interesting, fun and easy to read through (I would recommend breaks after an amount of pages you feel comfortable with, though, to absorb and contemplate about the dense pieces of information you received)

The author analyses the opinions, analyses, statements and phrasings made and chosen by analysts, historians, etc. about the connection between the resource oil and US foreign policy. Thereby showing how certain narratives keep resurfacing after some decade-long breaks without new insights or proof, all the while recycling myths and so it seems “wrong” views on the connection explained above.

Fascinating read AND as a bonus the author is very friendly and available for questions and dialogue. I e-mailed and got further answers and food for thought. So if you’re interested I can highly recommend making use of that.

Can recommend! 4/5

[Ben Meyers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another very strong and eye-opening read. This one, while still at times losing me with tacit details about the Middle East's vertiginous last century, was refreshingly focused on a single subject: the mythology surrounding oil. It dovetails economics with history to dispel some key 'unquestionable' assumptions (fears) that justify US projection in the Gulf in the name of oil. There are two principally insightful revelations. (1) it makes no sense to fear any oil-producing nation withholding supply of oil. They emphatically depend on selling oil; ask Saddam or Khomeini. The supply issues we faced in their countries came from our own sanctions (that themselves even have limited durable effect on prices because of the global nature of oil's market; it is a commodity). (2) the oil price crisis of the 1970s was caused by far more than the Arab subset of OPEC cutting off supply because of our support of Israel. Many forces like structural demand increase globally, multiple artificial domestic controls on supply, and OPEC (not just those in the Gulf) negotiating better posted prices from private companies, were at play. But the traumatic memory of that shock instills a fear of an oil weapon.

[Mia Burke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Political scientist Robert Vitalis dismantles the widely accepted belief that wars and foreign policy in the Middle East are primarily driven by the pursuit of oil. Drawing an analogy to "witchcraft," Vitalis introduces the concept of "oilcraft"—a political myth used to mystify and rationalize U.S. interventionism, obscure the real power dynamics in the region, and perpetuate the illusion that oil scarcity or access defines global strategy. With sharp historical analysis, he exposes how this narrative has been constructed and maintained across academic, journalistic, and policy-making circles—revealing that the real story of oil is more about myth-making than material necessity. However, his writing IS SO FUCKING ANNOYING. Egregious syntax my god. Write a straightforward sentence my guy.

[Leif]

What an authorial voice: arch, combative, informed. Hard to read for long at a time, but also immediately compelling. And, of course, the subject matter - necessary reading, no doubt.

[Omar · Rating 4 out of 5]

An amazing book that challenges many of my preconceived notions about the politics of international oil.

Many years ago, I did feel that many of us - on the left - had (and continue to have) a very sophomoric understanding of oil and geopolitics and, as a result, we advanced very simplistic arguments about US motivations in their invasion of Iraq and why there is a military presence in the Middle East. The logic is straightforward: Oil is central to the US economy; the US began to consume more than it produced; Iraq has a lot of oil; the US invaded to establish ownership and/or privileged access to Iraqi oil. In short, an oil grab.

I, too, subscribed to this belief until I attended grad school. Here I realized that (a) most of the oil concessions granted by Iraq were not given to the US government or US multinationals and (b) only 4% of US oil imports come from Persian Gulf countries not named Saudi Arabia. So, the oil grab argument doesn't hold too much water.

My research eventually led me to the conclusion that the US plays a vital role as a protector of international oil markets. Since oil is central to the global economy, the US wants to ensure that Persian Gulf oil supply reaches global markets to meet demand and keep prices relatively low and stable. The early 2000s were a time where oil demand was increasing and the goal of the invasion was to increase Iraqi oil supply.

Vitalis' book is attempt to destroy both of these theses.

First, oil is like any other commodity. If a country wants to access to oil, all it has to do is go on the world market and purchase it from a seller. It doesn't have to do anything extraordinary to get it.

Second, there are a lot of ideas about oil and geopolitics that become conventional wisdom despite there being no substantial evidence to support those beliefs.

One such belief is that the US has a military presence in the Middle East partly to secure shipping lanes and ensure seaborne commerce. But Vitalis points out that the costs of protection outstrips the economic benefits plus it is difficult to substantiate the (economic) impact that such the US military presence has on supplies and prices. And the evidence to support the US' ability to thwart seaborne threats are dubious at best.

Further, the US did not need to invade Iraq to secure access to its oil or increase global supply. All it had to do was remove the sanction regime. And this is a crucial point. Vitalis correctly points out that the United States, through its various sanction regimes on oil rich states, is the primary power that impedes global supply. Today in 2021, and the time the book was written last year, US sanctions targeted the oil sectors of Iran and Venezuela, thus restricting the oil trade and the latter two's ability to invest in the petroleum sector to increase supply. The US is more concerned with what anti-Western regimes do with their oil profits rather than who it sells its oil to.

So why did the US invade Iraq? The truth is: we don't know. Vitalis says it is difficult to truly understand what motivates policy makers and the reasons why a country decides to go to war are, by their very nature, complex. Much of arguments advanced by conservatives, the liberal punditry and anti-capitalist radicals are clouded with speculation.

Am I convinced by all of the arguments in the book? I am not sure. Clearly, I am by some, but I have to work through the others. But it definitely challenged a lot my preconceived ideas and, for that reason alone, this book is worthy of your purchase and time.