What is the earliest possible date the U.S could invade Saudi Arabia?

Roosevelt guaranteed sa’s security back in 1932 which the us has fulfilled since. Invading “allies” is generally bad precedence

As to controlling production, oil wells are like running. The faster you go the more quickly you get tired. Likewise overproducing is counter productive because you’re able to extract fewer barrels. So the us invading and ramping up production is probably a bad idea.

Best way to avoid opec is not backing Israel.
 

Infinity

Banned
Roosevelt guaranteed sa’s security back in 1932 which the us has fulfilled since. Invading “allies” is generally bad precedence

As to controlling production, oil wells are like running. The faster you go the more quickly you get tired. Likewise overproducing is counter productive because you’re able to extract fewer barrels. So the us invading and ramping up production is probably a bad idea.

Best way to avoid opec is not backing Israel.
Production shouldn't change significantly. The main difference would be profit from Aramco would go to Chevron, Exxon, Mobile, and Amoco. Presumably, Exxon and Mobil would be separate companies atl.
 
Production shouldn't change significantly. The main difference would be profit from Aramco would go to Chevron, Exxon, Mobile, and Amoco. Presumably, Exxon and Mobil would be separate companies atl.

eh, for oil to never go above $30, production would have had to increased in the 70's and then in the 00's. And getting American oil companies rich doesnt directly influence the points you made.
 
Set-up and supported to fight the soviet army in Afghanistan. Another example of a Frankenstein creature escaping her creators’ control.

To answer the question, I would say from 1943 on to the 1960´s. Although there were rumors of the US planning to invade the KSA in the years 1974-1976 due to the oil crisis and the dollar’s crisis, I doubt such an invasion would have occurred then because the USSR had reached strategic parity and I don’t think the USSR would have allowed a US takeover of SA.

The US has military contingencies for everything. Someone, somewhere, probably created a plan for the US invasion and occupation of Jamaica. Not because of any dark plots against Jamaica in the halls of the US government, but simply because there might somehow in some way be a need for this.

And if there isn't a need, it's good practise for juniour military officers to engage themselves with the logistics and considerations of US military planning. It's for the same reason that the US has zombie apocalypse training scenarios. Not because anyone believes this will happen, but to prepare for unexpected situations.

The US probably did consider the possibility of military invasion to relieve the oil crisis but this isn't exactly the most sensible plan of action. This would be a very difficult military operation for a number of reasons:

The US would have to embark upon a significant military effort in the post-Vietnam era to literally invade and occupy a large country with spread-out centres of population and then... how far would the US have to go to make it work? Would there have to be US naval ships escorting shipments of oil out of refineries guarded and operated by US personnel? How many oil workers would refuse to cooperate with the occupation of their country by a foreign power and have to be replaced by US personnel? Most importantly of all, what's the endgame? For how long must the United States occupy the oil-producing regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or possibly the entire country, in order to bring about an end to the oil embargo?

This would also, needless to say, destroy the US position in the Middle East. The United States will have replaced a stable and fairly reliable ally with a nation that will forever after be permanently hostile to the United States and its allies and ceded the initiative in the Middle East for the conceivable future to the Soviet Union.

So... in short, this would be a total disaster.
 
The US has military contingencies for everything. Someone, somewhere, probably created a plan for the US invasion and occupation of Jamaica. Not because of any dark plots against Jamaica in the halls of the US government, but simply because there might somehow in some way be a need for this.

And if there isn't a need, it's good practise for juniour military officers to engage themselves with the logistics and considerations of US military planning. It's for the same reason that the US has zombie apocalypse training scenarios. Not because anyone believes this will happen, but to prepare for unexpected situations.

The US probably did consider the possibility of military invasion to relieve the oil crisis but this isn't exactly the most sensible plan of action. This would be a very difficult military operation for a number of reasons:

The US would have to embark upon a significant military effort in the post-Vietnam era to literally invade and occupy a large country with spread-out centres of population and then... how far would the US have to go to make it work? Would there have to be US naval ships escorting shipments of oil out of refineries guarded and operated by US personnel? How many oil workers would refuse to cooperate with the occupation of their country by a foreign power and have to be replaced by US personnel? Most importantly of all, what's the endgame? For how long must the United States occupy the oil-producing regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or possibly the entire country, in order to bring about an end to the oil embargo?

This would also, needless to say, destroy the US position in the Middle East. The United States will have replaced a stable and fairly reliable ally with a nation that will forever after be permanently hostile to the United States and its allies and ceded the initiative in the Middle East for the conceivable future to the Soviet Union.

So... in short, this would be a total disaster.

Agreed, except on the first part of your message.

In this case it was not a mere contingency plan as there are hundreds of others. It was active and official diplomacy. Kissinger made it public in 1975 that the US may consider military invasion if oil exports restrictions by OPEC threatened to suffocate western economies.
 

Infinity

Banned
eh, for oil to never go above $30, production would have had to increased in the 70's and then in the 00's. And getting American oil companies rich doesnt directly influence the points you made.
Not if the the U.S limits Saudi Arabia's trade partners. Also, nowhere was it stated that the U.S can't buy oil from other countries. The U.S can still buy oil without military intervention. In this timeline, the U.S is more selective about what country it goes to war with. If war is about oil, Saudi Arabia is the most profitable target.
 
Not if the the U.S limits Saudi Arabia's trade partners. Also, nowhere was it stated that the U.S can't buy oil from other countries. The U.S can still buy oil without military intervention. In this timeline, the U.S is more selective about what country it goes to war with. If war is about oil, Saudi Arabia is the most profitable target.

With all due respect, I dont think you fully understand how the oil markets work. If Exxon (pick your American oil company of choice) now gets the rights to SA's production, it will sell it globally at the highest price. So if it goes for $30 in the US but $70 in Europe and Japan, it will sell that oil in Europe and Japan. Eventually, it settles out that you get more or less one oil price (Brent and WTI are always a little different accounting for regulations, oil type, and other considerations).

So what you are really saying is that you want American access to cheap oil and everyone else (Europe, Japan, China, etc) to pay high prices. Congrats you've just supremely ticked off all our trade partners and artificially hurt their economies. And whatever gains are made economically in the US are offset by weaker economies to export to and higher costs for imports. Not sure it nets out that positive for the US. Finally, Putin/USSR (depending upon the POD), Saddam Hussein, and the Ayatollah's in Iran are now in a much stronger position as they benefit from artificially high oil prices. Not sure this is what you want here.
 

Infinity

Banned
With all due respect, I dont think you fully understand how the oil markets work. If Exxon (pick your American oil company of choice) now gets the rights to SA's production, it will sell it globally at the highest price. So if it goes for $30 in the US but $70 in Europe and Japan, it will sell that oil in Europe and Japan. Eventually, it settles out that you get more or less one oil price (Brent and WTI are always a little different accounting for regulations, oil type, and other considerations).

So what you are really saying is that you want American access to cheap oil and everyone else (Europe, Japan, China, etc) to pay high prices. Congrats you've just supremely ticked off all our trade partners and artificially hurt their economies. And whatever gains are made economically in the US are offset by weaker economies to export to and higher costs for imports. Not sure it nets out that positive for the US. Finally, Putin/USSR (depending upon the POD), Saddam Hussein, and the Ayatollah's in Iran are now in a much stronger position as they benefit from artificially high oil prices. Not sure this is what you want here.
Europeans have always paid higher prices for oil than Americans.
 
Europeans have always paid higher prices for oil than Americans.

That's due to transportation, taxes, and regulation. Brent Crude is, IIRC, usually what Europeans pay for oil. It's usually withing $5 of WTI, which is often the American price. It varied a bit over the last few years and fracking came on line and the US was prohibited from exporting. But the spread is usually pretty constant and fluctuations in price tend to be highly correlated.
 
US invade Arabia? 1776 is too early. Even 1800 is, as Arabia is further than the Barbary States the US invaded about then. After that, it's a matter of why and how much money will you spend.
 

Infinity

Banned
That's due to transportation, taxes, and regulation. Brent Crude is, IIRC, usually what Europeans pay for oil. It's usually withing $5 of WTI, which is often the American price. It varied a bit over the last few years and fracking came on line and the US was prohibited from exporting. But the spread is usually pretty constant and fluctuations in price tend to be highly correlated.
Back when the price of crude oil was $150, Europeans were paying $2 more per gallon at the pump. In the early 1990's, cars in France were much smaller than they are today, largely due to not having access to cheap oil. One of my earliest memories is looking through a McDonalds window in France, and seeing all the cars the size of smart cars. This is what stood out to me more than anything else at Paris. Then when I returned to France over two decades later, I was shocked that the cars were the same size as those in the U.S.
 
although it seems obvious today, I'm kinda surprised that no one at the time seemed to predict what would happen... high oil prices would lead to more efficiency, in cars and heating, etc... raise prices of a commodity a lot, and people will make do with less of it...

A lot of people did see that. That portion of the dialoge was not much on the front page.
 
Technically not a invasion, but in the late 60 s the Communists were very active in Kuwati. Circa 1970-71 the US got the upper hand via clandestine ops & the monarchy was saved.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Saudi Arabia has the most profitable oil reserves on the planet. Most of the Al-Qaeda members came from Saudi Arabia. Suppose the U.S doesn't waste tax payer dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Instead, the U.S occupies Saudi Arabia, and oil never goes above $30 a barrel. Note, otl Saudi Arabia can profitably sell oil for as low as $18 a barrel.

Countries like Libya, Syria, and Yemen are largely ignored atl. The U.S takes little interest in countries other than Saudi Arabia. Maybe some weapons are sold to other countries, but that's it. In this time line, relations are better with Iran and Venezuela.

The most profitable company in the world, Saudi Aramco could still exist in this timeline, but they're less profitable than Exxon and Chevron. Depending on the PoD, Amoco (the successor to Standard Oil) still exists in this timeline. Tesla doesn't exist. Depending on the PoD, Toyota never builds the Prius.

More people travel by highway. More people enjoy the outdoors. Tech companies are much smaller. IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle are the biggest tech companies. Banks are never too big to fail. Less immigrants are deported and imprisoned. The population of the U.S is higher.
This is pretty unrealistic for the same reason why Iraq oil never turned out to be that profitable: you can't produce oil at $30/barrel when the country is in turmoil and there's people blowing up pipelines everyday
 
This is pretty unrealistic for the same reason why Iraq oil never turned out to be that profitable: you can't produce oil at $30/barrel when the country is in turmoil and there's people blowing up pipelines everyday

to be fair,iraq is a country with a massive population,which is also close to the pipelines...while saudi arabia isn't and especially wasn't.
 
I'm firmly convinced a US invasion of Saudi Arabia would result in a vicious opposition much like the ISIS of today. The Egyptian fundamentalist movement had been existent over a decade & embryonic moments existed elsewhere. Paralle to those I'd expect the ongoing Communist groups to gain support as they would be actively in opposition to any US/NATO invasion. Finally there would be the Saudi aristocracy. Unless the invasion was at their behest, same them from a Communits or fundamentalist revolt, they would be in opposition to the invaders.

The oil industry labor were partially local Arabs & many foreign unskilled and semi skilled labor, nearly all Muslims. While the foreign laborers would be at first confused and effectively neutral they would be subject to both pan Muslim, fundamentalist, Communist, and even the House of Saud. Its going to be increasingly difficult/expensive to get the petroleum out. The hostility to US control of the Arabian peninsula is going to spread through the Islamic world and elsewhere.

Within the US there was among other things to post Viet Nam miasma. This pervaded the right, the conservatives, the silent majority of Nixonian rhetoric. My father a lifelong Republican voter, career USAF officer, & American Legion leader ceased support of the Viet Nam War circa 1967, and post 1970 was vocally opposed to any further foreign adventures like it. This is to say a invasion of Saudi Arbia is not just going to generate protests by Hippies, or fringe groups like the SDS or Weathermen. Its going to lack support of many solid citizens like my father.
 
Top