The Dictator's Handbook [1] covers this in their chapter on foreign aid. TL; DR Democratically-elected leaders like dictatorships because it's easy to buy off dictators to achieve the electorate's foreign policy goals. Qatar lets us base with them for little compared to the diplomatic, economic and other concessions democracies require from the U.S. for such privileges. (Even near-moribund democracies like Pakistan's.)
This point is still a mystery to me. If it's always been about oil, then the US is currently the largest oil producer. Why are we still relying on these countries for anything?? Is it leveraging their wealth for other investments?
Might be something to do with it. Their economies are not amongst the world's largest, but they have disproportionate power to spend for these reasons, AFAICT
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/11/if-saudi-oil-no-longer...
"Oil" means "lots of money". Why do capitalist nations work with extremely rich unethical countries? Well, we want some of their money.
And because "free trade!!" is a reasonable argument in the US, a whole web of conflicting motives has sprung up perpetuating trade... weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel infrastructure companies lobbying politicians for "jobs" (profit), citizens misled by simplified mainstream media, hawkish doves demanding stability for the people by supporting strong states, dovish hawks insisting on elimination of rebel forces, Europe's reliance on stability to avoid immigration crisis and dependency on Russian energy, huge foreign investments in the US economy (eg Silicon Valley), stability of international oil prices influencing stability of domestic revenue, religious tension and political lobbying (Israel)... on and on.
> About 100 countries produce crude oil. In 2017, 48% of the world's total crude oil production came from five countries:
> Russia — 13%
> Saudi Arabia — 13%
> United States — 12%
> Iraq — 6%
> Iran — 5%
Clearly a major producer, but not nearly enough to set the market price. And that's the key thing: it's a global market. Even if we set internal US policy to only consume US produced oil, we would still be affected by production of other country's because it's the global oil supply that affects the price of that oil.
For the first time since 1973, the United States is the world's largest producer of crude oil, according to preliminary estimates published on Wednesday by the Energy Department.
Texas is the epicenter of the shale boom. Production in the Permian Basin of West Texas has grown so much that in February the United States vaulted above Saudi Arabia for the first time in more than two decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US output kept climbing in June and August, reaching nearly 11 million barrels per day. That nudged the United States ahead of Russia for the first time since February 1999, the EIA estimates.
The United States isn't expected to cede its crown any time soon. The EIA expects US oil production to stay ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia through 2019.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production...
No one in this thread has claimed that the US is trying to set the market price of oil. Can you cite any author besides yourself who claims that the US foreign policy at any point in the last 15 years has been driven by a desire to keep oil cheap?
What grandparent probably meant was that for the first time in decades the US is on the verge of being able to produce all the oil it needs: today the combination of the US and Canada can produce all the oil the combination needs, and US production is increasing rapidly with the result that in a year or 2 US production by itself will suffice to meet all of the US's consumption needs.
Also, a sheikh kidnapping his own daughter is really bad, yet it is a far cry from invading other nations, as America, England and Russia do all the time.
We're playing semantics here, aren't we? Of course it's a dictatorship.