American policy toward the Middle East has always been determined by the politics of oil and the politics of oil are determined by the oil companies.

It would be difficult to find many who would argue that the invasion of Iraq was premised, not on seizing Iraq’s oil, but rather to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons held by Saddam Hussein.

Six of the world’s 10 biggest companies are oil companies. These companies operate primarily in the Middle East, but their search for oil and profit has taken them throughout the world. Seventy percent of the fuel used by power companies to generate electricity in this country is fossil fuel. That is, oil, coal and gas.

The oil and utility companies hold enormous political power in this country as well. They can by providing, or withholding, funds to ambitious politicians to decide the outcome of elections.

The oil companies spent 83 million dollars last year on lobbying and campaign expenses. Oil companies themselves are prohibited by law from contributing directly to a candidate. But there are a variety of ways in which they circumvent the law. Contributions are provided through employee surrogates to candidates, or direct contributions to the two major parties.

John McCain received more than 2.5 million dollars in contributions from oil company employees and executives in his primary campaign. Those contributions were increased dramatically when McCain dropped his opposition to off shore drilling. The oil companies’ interests are served by fixing the idea in the public’s mind that more oil, rather than alternative power sources, will make the United States independent of oil imports. If presidential candidates are eager to express the oil companies’ propaganda, in return for money, so much the better for the oil companies.

Hillary Clinton received a combined total of more than two million dollars in her primary campaign from oil company surrogates; and Barak Obama received just under two million in contributions from surrogates in his primary campaign.

The oil and utility companies are engaged vigorously in their efforts to stop any attempt to reduce this country’s dependency on imported oil.

The public fear of a nuclear power disaster, which spread after the Three Mile Island incident, successfully limited construction of any new nuclear power facilities so as to allow the United States to remain burdened by electric power fueled by coal and oil.

Nuclear power facilities have operated safely in Western Europe for decades. As an alternative source for power which would reduce the influence of the oil companies, nuclear power would clearly have a dramatic effect on reducing our dependence on imported oil.

The July 26, 2007 issue of Science Daily reported that inadequate investment by the U.S. power companies to improve the nation’s power grid network is the Achilles heel of this country’s electric system.

“The electric industry and government regulators have addressed the immediate problems that led to the nation’s worst power failure three years ago on August 14,” said George Gross, a University of Illinois professor of electrical and computer engineering. “The broader problems of transmission congestion and bottlenecks continue to threaten the reliability of the grid particularly during periods of peak demand.”

On Aug. 27, The New York Times reported that Maple Ridge Farms, a company that has spent $320 million to put nearly 200 wind turbines in upstate New York, had at times been forced to shut down its energy producing turbines because the regional electric grid lines have been too congested.

The vast solar panel arrays throughout the western desert regions and elsewhere across the country are facing similar problems of integrating their production of electricity into the national power grid.

“The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not,” reported The New York Times.

Hillary Clinton said she ran for president “to promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green color jobs.”

Barak Obama said: “I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power, and solar power and the next generation of bio-fuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”

Sadly, not one of them seems to know about the independently owned power grids, which puts a real damper on their illusions.

This country’s power grid, the 200,000 miles of electrical transmission lines that serve the entire nation, are owned by 500 companies. These companies have failed to reinvest their great profits into improving the existing transmission lines and facilities. NewYork State, as an example, has not built a major new power line in 20 years.

Any additions or improvements made to the national grid means obtaining permission from the myriad independent energy companies, as well as state and local government agencies, which regulate the industry.

The politicians in Washington have known for some time of the problems and limitations of the power grid, but have made very little effort to solve the problem. There has been no pressure, or leadership from the Congress, including Senators Clinton, Biden, McCain and Obama.

In the 2005 energy law, Congress gave the Energy Department the authority to improve transmission lines even if the states or private companies refused to act. Fourteen U.S. senators then signed a letter saying that the department was being too aggressive. Effectively the response from these senators prevented the legislation from being implemented. Among the senators who signed the letter were Senators Clinton of New York and Biden of Delaware.

Allowing the construction of more electric transmission facilities, and transmission lines, would prevent congestion and mean more efficient delivery of power. Further, it would allow for the introduction of electrical energy from alternative energy sources, like wind and solar. That, however, would reduce overall cost including the cost paid for oil and coal, as dependence on fossil fuels was reduced. An added consequence would be to reduce the influence the oil companies have on electoral politics.

It is, in short, a fraud of reciprocal causation. Fully twenty percent of our nation’s electric power could be supplied by wind and solar power within a few years, if the grid was improved now. Wind power advocates claim that just two of the windiest states, North Dakota and South Dakota, could in principle provide half the nation’s electricity from turbines within the decade.

On March 24, 1999, the now defunct Enron Corporation purchased thousands of megawatts of electricity from a number of producers. The electricity, unlike oil, or gas futures, is in fact physically owned by the energy traders at the time they purchase it. They can effectively do with it what they choose when they choose. In this particular case Enron traders scheduled thousands of megawatts of electricity through a tiny Southern California transmission facility called Silver Peak, which they knew was too feeble to transmit the electricity onward.

As one Enron executive put it in an internal e-mail: “It was like trying to push an elephant through a keyhole.” The result was a devastating power failure forcing state power grid operators to find other routes for their power. Those alternative routes were then supplied by Enron and drove energy prices up by an astonishing 71 percent. Energy trading is now rejuvenated and new companies, highly profitable companies, employing former Enron traders, are back in the marketplace.

The cost of necessary improvements to the U.S. power grid would be somewhere around $60 billion, less than one half of what it will now cost the taxpayer to bail out Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

A large number of politicians, including some running for the top job in the country, bemoan very publicly the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and claim they yearn for a brighter future fueled by just the sun and the wind. The truth is they are at great pains to maintain the power of the oil and utility companies. The Middle East will continue to be as volatile as ever since their destiny is a tangential consequence of the politics of oil.

Morgan Strong is a former professor of Middle Eastern and Russian history, and was a consultant on the Middle East to CBS News and 60 Minutes. Reprinted from Middle East Times, September 10, 2008