Energy Security or Imperial Overreach? A Global South Perspective on a Fictional War's Lessons
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: A Premise of Perpetual Conflict
The recent essay by Bob McNally, founder of Rapidan Energy Group, presents a fascinating case study in imperial energy thinking. It operates from the core, unchallenged premise of a major US-Iran war—dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”—and proceeds to audit US policy successes and failures solely through the lens of American economic and strategic interest. For analysts in the Global South, particularly in civilizational states like India and China, this narrative is not just incomplete; it is a stark revelation of the underlying logic that perpetuates global instability. This blog post will dissect the facts presented and then offer a necessary corrective, viewing them through the principles of anti-imperialism, multipolarity, and genuine human security.
The Facts: A Washington-Centric Ledger
The article credits several US policy decisions with building resilience. The embrace of the shale revolution transformed the US into the world’s leading oil and gas producer and a net exporter. The bipartisan lifting of the crude oil export ban in 2015 is hailed as a masterstroke, without which the shale industry would have “collapsed.” During the fictional conflict, the US leveraged this position to become an “arsenal of energy,” exporting fuel to allies in Asia and Europe. Specific tactical measures, such as fuel waivers and Jones Act waivers, are noted as effective price-dampening tools.
Conversely, the article identifies three critical “mistakes.” The first and most significant was the failure to militarily protect the Strait of Hormuz at the conflict’s outset, allowing Iran to nearly shut the vital chokepoint. The second is the strategic blunder of allowing this situation to persist, thereby toppling the “load-bearing assumption” of the US as the guarantor of Gulf security—a role enshrined in the Carter Doctrine. The third mistake was the prior drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for budgetary and non-emergency reasons, leaving the US with diminished buffers.
The Unspoken Context: Whose Security? Whose Crisis?
The fundamental context omitted from this analysis is the most important one: who started this war, and why? The article treats a catastrophic regional conflict as a given, a natural event like a hurricane, to which the US must merely respond. This erasure of agency and cause is a classic tool of imperial analysis. It normalizes endless war as a background condition for policymaking. Furthermore, the definition of “energy security” is exclusively American and Western. Security means stable flows to the US and its allies; disruptions are measured in pump prices and GDP impacts. The existential threat such a war poses to the people of Iran and the broader West Asian region is irrelevant to this calculus. The “beleaguered importers” in Asia and Europe are centered, while the nations whose lands and waters become the battlefield are peripheral.
Opinion: The Pernicious Logic of Hegemonic “Stewardship”
This analysis exposes the deep-seated ideology of American exceptionalism in global energy. The celebration of the shale revolution’s export potential is not about global abundance; it is about weaponizing energy dependency. Becoming an “arsenal of energy” is the economic corollary to being an arsenal of democracy—a phrase used to justify military-industrial dominance. It creates a system where the Global South, including large economies like India, must remain perpetually vulnerable to the political whims of Washington and the volatility of markets it controls.
The lament over the unprotected Strait of Hormuz is perhaps the most revealing segment. The decades of military preparation to “engage Iran” are presented as prudent planning. The real “unforced error,” from this view, was not the decision to go to war, but the tactical failure to immediately seize the strait. This is the logic of colonialism repackaged for the 21st century: critical global commons must be under the control of a Western power, by force if necessary. The Carter Doctrine is not a relic; it is the ongoing operational manual. The shock expressed that Iran could defy this doctrine and “strangle the world’s most important energy choke point” betrays an expectation of permanent subservience. From a multipolar perspective, Iran’s ability to defend its sovereign interests in its proximate waters is not a “hostage-taking”; it is the assertion of a nation-state against hegemonic overreach. The instability is not caused by the assertion, but by the hegemonic system that deems such assertion illegitimate.
The Strategic Reserve and the Morality of Resources
The critique of draining the SPR is technically sound but morally hollow. The Biden administration’s release of oil, ostensibly over Russia, highlights how strategic reserves are used as tools of economic warfare against targeted states (like Russia or Iran), not as genuine humanitarian buffers for global crises. The article’s concern is that this tool was blunted for a “nonemergency.” This implies that there exists a “correct” emergency—likely one defined by US national interest—for which the reserve should be used. The very concept of a national stockpile, hoarded by the world’s largest producer and consumer, while import-dependent nations face ruinous prices, is a feature of an unjust global energy architecture.
Conclusion: Toward a Truly Global Energy Security
The ledger presented by McNally is indeed “incomplete.” It lacks the most crucial columns: the cost in human lives, the right of nations to sovereignty, and the collective security of the planet. A think tank analysis worthy of the name must ask different questions. Instead of “How do we better secure the Strait of Hormuz for ourselves?” we must ask “How do we collectively de-escalate tensions and build a regional security framework in West Asia that includes all stakeholders, especially Iran?” Instead of “How do we maintain our export dominance?” we should ask “How can technology and policy foster genuine energy independence and renewable transition in the Global South, breaking the cycle of dependency?”
The path forward is not through doubling down on the Carter Doctrine or perfecting the “arsenal of energy.” It is through dismantling the structures of neo-colonial energy control. It requires respecting the civilizational perspectives of states like China and India, which seek engagement and development, not military primacy. It demands an international rule of law applied equally, not a Pax Americana enforced by carrier groups. The lesson from this fictional war scenario is not that the US needs better contingency plans; it is that the world desperately needs a contingency plan for a future beyond American hegemony. The energy-secure world of the future will be built on cooperation, multipolarity, and shared human security, not on the ruins of another neocolonial war in the Global South. The real “folly” we must avoid is continuing to believe the old, bankrupt myths of imperial stewardship.