Every government we’ve removed in an oil-producing country was replaced by something just as bad or by chaos that was worse. We don’t have the ability to fix what we break, and it’s not our place to try. If we actually wanted to help these people, we’d find ways that work, and don’t involve destroying their country.
We are good at destroying governments. We have never successfully replaced one in the Middle East.
Every time the government says we’re going to free people by starting a war in the Middle East, those people end up worse off.1 Every single time.
We have been here before. The justifications shift from war to war — weapons of mass destruction, regional security, counterterrorism — but the humanitarian argument is always in there somewhere. It’s a reliable hook because Americans genuinely do care about people living under brutal governments. It’s just how we are. And it gets used every time.1
U.S. regime-change wars in oil-producing countries were rarely officially described as “wars for oil.” Yet oil was almost always part of the background logic. The public was told—directly or indirectly—that these interventions would protect energy supplies, stabilize prices, or prevent hostile control of critical resources.
This section explains why those expectations were misplaced, and why they repeatedly failed when tested against real outcomes.
