What if the Middle East had no oil?

[Bmao]

Here's a question I just thought up of, seeing how gas prices are at all time highs, and that we're sucking up to the Middle East to give us oil, how about this? What would happen if the Middle East had absolutely no oil? There would be nothing but dry, scorching, useless desert. That would seriously screw Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and basically every middle eastern country.

Also, would the boundaries of the Middle East be different because of this? How about gas prices? Would they be even more expensive than they are now? Or cheaper? Would there still have been an Iraq war if Iraq had no oil? I am inclined to doubt that.

So what do you think?

[HueyLong]

This is kind of ASB. The oil is there because of geographic and biological history, and removing it would take magic.

[Bmao]

All right; I'll change it then. I always get confused on what category to put it under. I only joined two days ago so I'm still getting used to the site, sorry about that.

[HueyLong]

I understand. I didn't mean to sound harsh.

[Doeth]

At least in the Before 1900...

Say the climate was subtly different, say the moon went out slower, thus making the world spin faster, so the climate would be screwd...


Not at all expensive, the oil (due to the climate shift) would probably end up in northwest Arizona

[Doeth]

At least in the Before 1900...

Say the climate was subtly different, say the moon went out slower, thus making the world spin faster, so the climate would be screwd...


Not at all expensive, the oil (due to the climate shift) would probably end up in northwest Arizona

[HueyLong]

Yeah, but the chances of a climactically screwed world coming up with anything remotely resembling humans is zilch.

[Ruthlesstyrant]

If the Middle East had no oil and everything else was the same until the beginning of the 20th century?
Well, no Kuwait. The British founded Kuwait as a separate Entity because of the oil fields there. If there weren't any, it would most probably part of an independent Iraq, which was still in their sphere of influence, but not as westernized as Kuwait would become.
Perhaps a larger Turkey. Ataturk drawed the borders of modern Turkey after the "National Pact". It consisted also some areas in northern Iraq, in mainly Kurdish-settled regions (which was no contradiction for the Turks, because up to the late 20th century, they simply described the Kurds as "Mountain Turks"). If I recall it correctly, Kinross wrote in his Ataturk-biography that the British wanted to keep the oil fields in northern Iraq within their sphere of influence.
Certainly a more backward Middle East, perhaps a larger Israel. Let's say it frankly: the main reason why everyone is so sensitive when it comes to the Arabs is because they are the owners of the lifeblood of our modern societies. Without oil money, I don't see that those states in the Persian Gulf would have modernized within the space of some decades. You would probably have some more modern societies, but the Arab peninsula (especially Wahabite Saudi-Arabia) would perhaps be the Arab equivalent to Afghanistan. And without the means to pressure the West, it would be far easier to ignore their caprices and less probable that someone would feel urged to pressure Israel on any matters.

This are my thoughts, and I bet there would be more.

[Burton K Wheeler]

I think Yemen is a good example of what the Arabian Peninsula would look like without oil. Worse than Sub-Saharan Africa. Iraq would probably look like a slightly poorer Syria or Egypt.
Iran is the interesting question. Even without its government being the victim of oil exploitation schemes, it's likely to become a Cold War battleground. With a competent government (Mossadegh's regime I'm not entirely sure about), Iran could possibly play the U.S. well enough to support development pretty well. When and how the inevitable conflicts as Iran rises to Great Power status (which in OTL began around 2004) are hard to predict.
The collapse of the Soviet Union might be delayed, as their oil resources will be that much more valuable. An equally convincing argument could be made that increased foreign oil trade could hasten the collapse of the Soviet regime, but I like the picture of a nominally Communist regime like today's China holding the world hostage with its oil production monopoly. Probably a serious effort would be made by the U.S. and Europe to develop alternative fuel sources.

[Berra]

They would be better of.

Oil tend to be nationalized. Then two things happen. First of all, its a controlled economy. It frightens people of so they dont dare to invest. The controlled portion of the economy also tends to grow thus destroying any chance of a working economy.

The wealth also tend to be spread around making a large class of nonworking citizens. Thus, no wealth is created. Arabia would be better of without oil but the best solution would be if the money gets in the hands of western oil companies.

[Bmao]

They would be better of.

The wealth also tend to be spread around making a large class of nonworking citizens. Thus, no wealth is created. Arabia would be better of without oil but the best solution would be if the money gets in the hands of western oil companies.

Actually, I have my doubts about that. Without oil, the Middle East would be like Chad, Niger, Mali or those other desperately poor African countries without oil. Nobody gives a damn about what happens there, so if Arabia had no oil, the same would apply there.

The Arab regimes would turn even more fundamentalist than they already are, as they have nothing else to back their society with other than religion. So, my main point was, if you thought Arabia was bad enough as it was with oil, it would be even worse if it didn't.

[HueyLong]

Chad has oil.......

[Bmao]

Oh, I didn't know that Chad had oil, but you get my drift right? Arabia would be as lifeless as the areas of the Sahara desert that have no oil. Nobody would give a damn what happens to 3rd world countries without oil anyhow, that's what I think.

[HueyLong]

Chad doesn't have much oil, although I understand these high prices are causing exploration and expansion to happen......

Yes, Arabia would be mostly screwed. The Persian Gulf would be a backwater, so no UAE as a shipping magnate. Maybe Oman gets control of the Indian Ocean trade? Iraq would be a local power, if I understand their situation correctly, as a food producer.

[The Mists Of Time]

If The Middle East had no oil its economic, political, military, and strategic importance would be about zero, especially compared to today.

Would Islam have grown to become what it is today in OTL, and would international terrorism be what it is today in OTL? In this regard the world would politically be a very different place. Middle Eastern Oil and the politics behind it have been a very big factor in making the world of OTL what it is.

If the Middle East had never had oil, that means we would be getting oil from the other places in the world that have oil. Would those places have had enough oil to build and maintain the modern world as we know it? It may also be possible that if oil had never formed in The Middle East, that much more of it would have formed in the other places in the world that have oil. So the world's total oil supply might still be close to what it is in OTL. With no oil in The Middle East it is also possible that large amounts might have formed in places in the world that don't have any oil in OTL, which would again change the political global worldwide political situation.

If oil was only in the other non-Middle Eastern parts of the world where it is in OTL and in only the same amounts as in OTL, we might have already switched to another source of energy.

I think the question "What if the Middle East had no oil?" brings up lots of other questions.

I don't think anything about history would be different until the very late 19th and early 20th Centuries. It wasn't until then that oil became part of the picture, Middle Eastern oil really entered the picture big time in the 1920's I think.

I think the Middle East in TTL would be a more peaceful place today. There would still probably be tension between Israel and her Arab neighbors, but wuthout oil the countries in that part of the world would never have been able to buy the kinds of weapons, build up the kinds of armies, or have the influence thay have in today's world.

A world where The Middle East had never had oil would be a very different world than it is in OTL.

[Burton K Wheeler]

Chad doesn't have much oil, although I understand these high prices are causing exploration and expansion to happen......

Yes, Arabia would be mostly screwed. The Persian Gulf would be a backwater, so no UAE as a shipping magnate. Maybe Oman gets control of the Indian Ocean trade? Iraq would be a local power, if I understand their situation correctly, as a food producer.

No question about it, Iran would be the 800-pound gorilla of the Persian Gulf. If their economy does not rely on oil and foreign investment, the development of shipping, among other industries, is likely. If Iran is a strong U.S. ally, which also seems likely, the U.S. would probably allow Iranian influence in Iraq and the Gulf.

[Grimm Reaper]

This POD would have to go back even further. Moses made the Jews walk for forty years just to find the one spot safely clear of vast sources of oil wealth. In this world Israel could be almost anywhere in the region...

[Fabilius]

I actully think many places would be better off. Less influence for Arabia, but I could imagine Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran thriving.

[Leo Caesius]

Actually, I have my doubts about that. Without oil, the Middle East would be like Chad, Niger, Mali or those other desperately poor African countries without oil. Nobody gives a damn about what happens there, so if Arabia had no oil, the same would apply there.Chad, Niger, and Mali don't have five thousand years of urban civilization and the ruins to show for it. After all, look at Lebanon, before the Civil War: they don't have any oil.

A more interesting TL might arise if the petroleum-based economy never arose (e.g. no Baku Oil Boom in 1872, no Alfred Nobel, etc.). If the Middle East oil resources simply weren't exploited, it is possible that the Ottoman Empire would last longer (even if a conflict like WWI occurs, the only reason the other Great Powers would have to dismantle it would be to safeguard the rights of Christians and control over the Suez - resulting in a diminished Ottoman Empire, to be sure, without the Balkans, Armenia, or Egypt, but one that still has control over much of the Arab world).

[Anthony Appleyard]

If there was no oil in the Middle East, the Middle East would remain a backwater like it was after Vasco de Gama etc found how to reach the Far East directly to by Chinese and Indonesian and Indian etc products directly instead of the Middle East being middlemen.

[BGMan]

The whole world would be vastly better off. Not to mention the fact that the USA would not be wasting thousands of soldiers' lives and trillions of dollars in a pointless war in Iraq. :mad:

[B_Munro]

Chad, Niger, and Mali don't have five thousand years of urban civilization and the ruins to show for it. After all, look at Lebanon, before the Civil War: they don't have any oil.

A more interesting TL might arise if the petroleum-based economy never arose (e.g. no Baku Oil Boom in 1872, no Alfred Nobel, etc.). If the Middle East oil resources simply weren't exploited, it is possible that the Ottoman Empire would last longer (even if a conflict like WWI occurs, the only reason the other Great Powers would have to dismantle it would be to safeguard the rights of Christians and control over the Suez - resulting in a diminished Ottoman Empire, to be sure, without the Balkans, Armenia, or Egypt, but one that still has control over much of the Arab world).

Was middle east oil the major reason for the dismantling of the Ottoman empire? I had the impression that as of WWI people really didn't grasp yet just how much oil there was in the area, outside of Iran. And I have trouble seeing the British giving back to Turkey the areas they were occupying in late 1918, any more than they would support the reunification of Austria-Hungary.

(OK, it's not _our_ WWI, but really - give the Holy Land back to the Turk?)

Frankly, it strikes me as very improbable that the development of the petroleum based economy fails to occur - indeed, is more than slightly delayed. it's just too useful in too many ways for an industrial civilization. Perhaps it could be delayed for a generation or so, in which case the middle east becomes tremendously important as an oil source by the 80's rather than the 60's.

Bruce

[Tom Veil]

Egypt would be the pre-eminent power of the Arab world. About 1/5 of all Arabs live in Egypt in OTL, but they have no oil, so they struggle to keep up economically. TTL, Egypt would have about 30% of all Arabs b/c Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc., would have much smaller populations. They would also be the natural source of any investment dollars when multinational companies want to capture the "Arab market."

Iran's revolution probably would have been much more muted, lacked the anti-foreigner element, and might not have succeeded. Anti-modernist resentment would still allow for a revolutionary movement, but without the foreign oil companies, the fire is really gone. They might look like Turkey today OTL.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain have basically no reason to exist. They will be dirt-poor fishing communities, reminiscing about the great Golden Age of Sail when they had real influence.

[Ruthlesstyrant]

Egypt would be not just more populous (relative to the others), but far wealthier as well (again, relative to the others). I mean, some states, especially those who have been little more than tribalistic desert-states, wouldn't matter at all. And since in the land of the blind the one-eyed is the king, Egypt would be even more important for Arabia than it already was in OTL.

[Leo Caesius]

Was middle east oil the major reason for the dismantling of the Ottoman empire?Oil was part of it (hence the inclusion of the Ottoman Vilayet of Mosul with the Mesopotamian mandate, and the pre-existing British protectorate over Kuwait). Another reason for the dismantling of the Ottoman empire was the principle of self-determination and the historic role played by France and the other European powers in guaranteeing the rights of Middle Eastern Christians. Prior to the WWI, however, there was no Arab national movement comparable to the secessionist movements in the Balkans; primarily, the Arabs were agitating for greater representation within the Ottoman government and recognition of the Arabic language.

[B_Munro]

Oil was part of it (hence the inclusion of the Ottoman Vilayet of Mosul with the Mesopotamian mandate, and the pre-existing British protectorate over Kuwait).


Well, my point was, if there was no oil, would that mean the British would have given back the areas of Levant and Iraq that they were already holding? There was, I believe, some notion among the British of preserving a weak and federated Ottoman empire as a British protectorate, but the French wanted some territorial booty in partial compensation for their losses.

Bruce

[Leo Caesius]

Well, my point was, if there was no oil, would that mean the British would have given back the areas of Levant and Iraq that they were already holding? You mean Basra and its oil wells? Apart from what they seized in the last few months of the war, that's all they had, IIRC, and they probably wouldn't have concerned themselves very much with Basra if it weren't for the oil wells.

As for the rest of the Middle East, I can't be sure. The French probably would have pushed for the Lebanon, but the British might have prevailed upon them to let the remainder of the Ottoman Empire stay.

[Albidoom]

Another thought would be: if the Mid-East Oil doesn't exist the research into other fuel sources (coal liquedation, crops, ethanol combustion) should be far more advanced. If this yields early enough succesful results, the countries which will have fuel shortages during wartime will somewhat change (Germany has lots of coal deposits only they're not very profitable to exploit nowadays)
Although, with new technologies invented (and thus a better economy and maybe less depression) Hitler and other lunatics might be butterflied away

[Strategos' Risk]

This whole idea is rather interesting, though.

Oil, relatively speaking, is a recent super-demanded resource.

If the Middle East's oil deposits were much reduced, or let's make this slightly more realistic and let's say they're much, much deeper than modern technology could detect, until when does the timeline diverge? The late 1800s? Early 1900s?

[B_Munro]

You mean Basra and its oil wells? Apart from what they seized in the last few months of the war, that's all they had, IIRC, and they probably wouldn't have concerned themselves very much with Basra if it weren't for the oil wells.
.

The British had been in Baghdad since March of 1917, Jerusalem since December.

Are you suggesting that the british would have stuck with "don't break up the Ottoman Empire" and balked at anything like Sykes-Picot if they hadn't known of Iraqi oil? That the Balfour Delclaration was actually about the oil? That without the oil, they would have given back those territories they had been holding since 1917 regardless of French or Italian opinions or the 100,000 plus dead that taking them had cost?

No oil makes the carveup of the Ottoman empire somewhat less likely, ok: that no oil makes the carveup of the Ottoman empire _unlikely_, I don't buy.

Bruce

[Albidoom]

Well, according to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
(wikipedia)

oil consumption grew to significant portions around early 30ies, but the real growth in demand starts in the 50ies (when the use of cars became widespread), so human history won't be affected very much before that (apart from Baghdad not being paved with tar in the 8th century due to not easy accessible deposits).
And even WWII (where fuel issues became important) could rather stay the same, butterflies excluded, since the Idea of the Afrikakorps threatening to seize the mid-eastern oil fields combined with the supplies (and the supply problems) they had is rather improbable.