theKuwaiti border and protected only by a Saudi national guardbattalion of less than 1,000 men, as Robert J. Lieberpointed out in the summer 1992 issue of InternationalSecurity. Saddam would have controlled 46 percent of theworld's oil reserves” (Heilbrunner, 1996, p. 4). As both the threat of Saddam Hussein and the recentbombing at an Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia demonstrate,the potential for oil-threatening conflict in the regionwill not go away. Iraq has already attacked three of itsneighbors--Iran, Kuwait and Israel. According toHeilbrunner, “There is no reason to believe Saddam won'tstrike again. Instability could come from other sources. Onescenario might be a joint Turkish-Iranian grab for Iraqiterritory in the north. The ascendance of NecmettinErbakan's religious Welfare Party in Turkey does not bodewell for America's future ability to influence Turkey. SaudiArabia may become another source of trouble, since CrownPrince Abdullah has made no secret of his unease with theU.S. As America's oil thirst continues to rise, anAbdullah-led Saudi regime could work more strenuously toresurrect opec and influence American policy toward Israel”(Heilbrunner, 1996, p. 4) . According to most experts, there is yet anotherchallenge facing the U.S. The nation must devise a clearstrategy combining oil and national security. Part of thatstrategy must including reducing American dependence onforeign oil. Key strategies to achieve this goal includepromoting conservation and perhaps subsidizing publictransportation, such as a high-speed rail network. AsHeilbrunner says, “But safeguarding American oil also meanspresiding over a pax Americana rather than a lax Americanain the Middle East. The only thing Saudi Arabia, Jordan andEgypt fear more than U.S. resolution is U.S. irresolution.In the short term, Clinton and Gore might work to bring 4million barrels of oil per day back onto the market. They'relocated in Iraq, awaiting a re...
