gonjah wrote:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But you never "don't". You are always doing. Doing the wrong thing,
that is.

The US is going to be much less involved in the Middle East in the
future.

Wrong. For one thing, think Israel.

The US is getting less and less oil from there. By 2016 we will be
producing most of our oil and getting the rest from North and South
American sources.

As long as you are part of a global trade network for oil, you will have
a vested interest that ALL OIL, EVERYWHERE can flow freely (the spice
must flow).

Because even if you don't import a drop of oil from the middle east, you
will still pay a price for oil that reflects it's supply/demand rules.
If Iran blocks the straight of hormuz, the WTI and Brent price for crude
will shoot up, and you will pay more for oil and gasoline domestically
as a result - even if none of your oil comes from there.

The only way you can totally divorce yourself from political turmoil and
oil supply issues of the middle east is if you set up a closed /
isolated oil market within your own country. Your gov't sets the price
and your imports and (more importantly - your exports) are regulated by
the gov't. Something tells me that your real masters (the oil
companies) wouldn't like that very much. We tried that in the 1980's
and there was considerable blow-back (look up the NEC - Canada's attempt
at a National Energy Policy).