Actually the sub-heading (next paragraph) should probably be asked as a rhetorical question. It appears pretty obvious bombs and other munitions are not the brightest fucking way to provide energy security. To some (neocons) it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but they got it all wrong as usual.
It's time to ask whether the U.S. military should have anything to do with American energy security.
If you thought things were bad, with a barrel of crude oil at $136 and the oil heartlands of our planet verging on chaos, don't be surprised, but you may still have something to look forward to. Alexei Miller, chairman of Russia's vast state-owned energy monopoly, Gazprom, just suggested that, within 18 months, that same barrel could be selling for a nifty $250. Put that in your tank and ... well, don't drive it. It will be far too valuable.
Think of Miller's sobering prediction as, at least in part, a result of the Bush administration's attempt to "secure" the Middle East and the oil-rich Caspian basin by force in two failing wars (and occupations). Now, imagine for a moment, what his price scenario might be if, as journalist Jim Lobe -- never one to leap from rumors to sensational conclusions -- recently suggested, forces in the Bush administration (and in Israel) in favor of launching an air campaign against Iran are gaining strength. Just the suggestion last week by Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli deputy prime minister, that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if that country doesn't halt its nuclear program -- "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective." -- helped send the price of crude oil soaring. Imagine what an actual air attack might do.
You know that old joke: military justice is to justice as military music is to music; well, someday, not so far into the future, a similar, though far grimmer joke, is likely to be made about Washington's attempts to secure the U.S. oil supply by military means.
Note: Headline links to source.