Introduction
The modern economy pretends to be based on data and algorithms. In reality, its foundation remains crude oil, which dictates the terms of transport, production, and military power.
This article analyzes how control over raw materials drives a new form of imperialism. The reader will discover why the struggle for resources is, in essence, a struggle for global financial and political dominance.
The text explains the mechanisms used to discipline rivals and diagnoses the crisis of American leadership, which is shifting from consent to coercion.
Oil as the Material Foundation of Global Power
Oil is not a mere commodity, but a strategic instrument of power. Whoever controls its flow governs the rhythm of the global economy and the costs of production.
Through the petrodollar system, the US gained a unique ability to finance deficits and discipline other nations without resorting to force. The dollar became indispensable to anyone wishing to trade in energy.
Control over raw materials allows for the management of both domestic and foreign consumption. Cheap energy cushioned social tensions within the heart of the empire, while its availability to rivals became a tool for blackmail.
Oil as a Determinant of Global Conflict Intensity
Wars in oil-rich regions do not stem solely from corporate greed. They are about power over the conditions of capital accumulation and control of strategic chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz.
These conflicts are multi-layered. They merge resource interests with the struggle for the right to deterrence, prestige, and national security, as seen in the US-Israel-Iran dispute.
The example of Iran's nuclear program demonstrates a power asymmetry. The right to possess strategic weapons is reserved for a select few; attempts by others to achieve autonomy are treated as destabilization.
Oil and the Dollar as Tools for Disciplining Rivals
The combination of oil and the dollar creates an infrastructure of coercion. Financial sanctions have become an administrative weapon, cutting adversaries off from global payment systems.
The transition from hegemony (based on consent and development) to dominance (based on coercion) signals an imperial crisis. The US increasingly offers fewer benefits and employs more threats.
Such a strategy leads to imperial overstretch. The costs of maintaining a global network of bases and sanctions are beginning to outweigh the profits, and military logic is permeating democratic institutions within the US.
Conclusion
Oil exposes the false innocence of globalization. The free market is not self-regulating; rather, it is secured through violence and territory.
The energy transition does not eliminate the logic of imperialism. The fight for oil will be replaced by a struggle over lithium, cobalt, and technological patents.
The question remains: will the post-oil world become a space of freedom, or merely an arena for new monopolies and resource dependencies?
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is crude oil key to understanding contemporary imperialism and the global economy?
Crude oil is the material condition for the functioning of the modern economy, essential for transport, agriculture, and military production. In the context of imperialism, it constitutes a strategic tool of power, as control over raw material supplies allows for influence over global production costs, inflation, and the energy security of states.
Are conflicts in oil-rich regions motivated solely by the desire to seize raw materials?
No, conflicts in oil-rich regions are not motivated solely by the desire to seize raw materials. They encompass a wide range of factors, such as national security, regional and global rivalries, nuclear issues, religious and ideological tensions, as well as internal political and constitutional disputes.
How does control over oil and currency allow the USA to influence other states without using force?
Control over energy access allows the USA to discipline rivals through the ability to exert pressure and employ energy blackmail. Simultaneously, the petrodollar system ensures that the world needs the American currency, enabling the USA to finance deficits and use financial sanctions as a tool of pressure.
How does crude oil serve the USA in maintaining dominance over other states and control over its own society?
The USA maintains dominance over other states by controlling maritime routes and strategic energy points in Eurasia, which allows them to block the integration of potential competitors. Domestically, cheap energy serves as a tool of social control, cushioning class tensions and providing material comfort that silences criticism of the system.
Does moving away from crude oil and transitioning to green energy mean the end of imperialism and resource wars?
No, the transition to green energy does not automatically mean the end of imperialism; rather, it shifts the struggle to new fields, such as rare earth metals or technologies. If the transformation is subordinated solely to profitability, it may lead to the creation of new monopolies and raw material dependencies.
Are conflicts in the Middle East motivated solely by the desire to seize control over oil deposits?
No, conflicts in the Middle East are not motivated solely by the desire to seize control over oil. They consist of many layers, including issues of security, religion, technology, and the ambitions of elites, with the struggle for the right to deterrence being a key element.
How does the conflict over nuclear weapons in Iran expose the power hierarchy within the international system and affect the internal structure of the United States?
The conflict exposes the imperial core of the international order, where the formal equality of states coexists with a hierarchy of actual prerogatives, granting some the right to deter while accusing others of destabilization. Within the US, this dispute permeates the struggle over war powers, where the logic of empire and the need for rapid decision-making weaken democratic procedures and the constitutional function of Congress in favor of strengthening executive power.
How does the asymmetric conflict in the Middle East affect the global economy and the strategies of great powers?
The conflict affects the global economy through disruptions in supply chains and limitations on oil refining, which impacts Chinese refineries as well as the petrochemical and aviation sectors. This leads to a decline in global oil demand and a reduction in economic activity. Strategically, great powers face the asymmetric logic of an opponent who seeks to make victory too costly and risky.
How does global dependence on oil influence the strategies of great powers and regional states in the face of conflicts?
Global dependence on oil forces China to diversify supply routes and technologies to reduce vulnerability to great power coercion, while forcing Europe into a painful process of building energy sovereignty. Gulf states balance between great powers, striving to transform resource rents into a lasting geopolitical position and a modern economy before the end of the oil era.
How do sanctions, modern military technology, and ideological narratives influence the dynamics of contemporary hegemonic conflicts?
Sanctions serve a disciplinary function by cutting off access to global infrastructure, which often leads to the militarization of gray-zone structures and deepens societies' dependence on regimes. Modern military technology may lower the threshold for the use of force through the vision of precision strikes, while ideological narratives dehumanize the opponent, limiting the room for negotiation in favor of apocalyptic gestures.
How does the conflict in the Middle East illustrate the crisis of American hegemony and its relations with other great powers?
The conflict in the Middle East illustrates the crisis of American hegemony through a transition from leadership based on consent to dominance enforced by coercion, which weakens trust and builds coalitions of resistance. This situation is exploited by China, presenting the US as a source of chaos, and by Russia, which hopes to divert Washington's attention away from Eastern Europe.
What is the difference between hegemony and domination, and why is the transition between them a signal of an empire's crisis?
Domination relies on coercion and force, whereas hegemony additionally requires the consent of subordinates, institutions, and the belief that leadership serves the general interest. The transition from hegemony to domination signals an imperial crisis because the loss of the ability to generate consent forces the empire to incur higher costs associated with maintaining order through fear.
Why did the United States stop ruling the world through consensus and institutions and begin employing military coercion?
This change results from the weakening of the material foundations of consent for American hegemony and the crisis of the neoliberal model, which ceased to be perceived as a path to prosperity. In the face of fading consensus and growing resistance to globalization, the United States shifted toward unilateralism and military coercion, a process accelerated by the events of September 11, 2001.
How did the shift in American geopolitical strategy from leadership to domination affect the internal structure of the state and the power relationship with the citizen?
The transition from leadership to domination caused a style of governance based on coercion to permeate the interior of the state, manifesting in the introduction of surveillance and control mechanisms (e.g., the Patriot Act). The state-citizen relationship changed through the forced surrender of liberties for security and the erosion of democracy in favor of discipline and secrecy.
What are the long-term effects of the US using financial systems and military force to discipline other states?
In the long run, weaponizing financial systems accelerates the fragmentation of the global order and encourages other states to build alternative currencies, payment systems, and supply chains. Meanwhile, military interventions can lead to imperial overstretch, loss of authority, and the undermining of the moral foundations of American hegemony.
What are the long-term effects of replacing soft power with military and financial coercion in US relations with the world?
The long-term effect of replacing soft power with coercion is the loss of US credibility and the transformation of relationships with allies into purely transactional contracts based on fear. This leads to a narrowing of the political imagination of societies and increased resistance from other states, which begin to diversify reserves and build alternative systems.
What are the long-term effects of replacing international consent with military and financial coercion?
Replacing consent with coercion leads to increased resistance and aspirations for strategic autonomy, as it highlights the points of dependency from which nations must decouple. This generates enormous financial and political costs (imperial overstretch) that may exceed a state's capacity to sustain them. Furthermore, the weakening of one hegemony does not guarantee freedom, but may instead lead to competition between several systems of coercion.
