You hit the nail on the head though: the Saudis believe they can defy us because they know we need their oil. They don't understand that our tolerance has limits.
As more and more Americans can see, the Saudis are more than just part of the problem, they are the source of the Terrorist problem, with Wahhabism and their support of terrorists. They have to go. The questions are only when and how to do it without disrupting our economies fatally.
I would like to think so ... in theory we can, but at a great expense. Persian Gulf oil is of superior quality and much much cheaper than any other source. If we are willing to assume a big shortage and greater expense, sure we can. In that case , we can kiss the old world goodbye and prosper here in the new world. (happy Columbus Day) ...
Some friends.
Most people could actually restrict their fuel consuming to a great extent, with very little loss of "quality of life", but it requires forethought and planning and a change of mental direction and mindset. All the talk of conservation is lost mostly, people's habits are hard to change in this respect, and our economy is really tied to fuel being at a low price, everything else revolves around that. people would honestly have to "think" about their driving habits, and judging by the amount of clinton/gore voters, 'thinking" is in a severe shortage in this nation. ha! In fact, "conservation" in general is ridiculed in a lot of quarters as being somehow communistic and un patriotic. You can see it on this board, there is no compromise in a lot of peoples thoughts, they equate conservation with the radical greenie movement, which is stupid, because it doesn't have to be that way, but there ya go. I'm a big alternative energy proponent, most guys I know who think and do the same are patriots, conservatives or libertarians, into self sufficiency, etc, but get ridiculed by the luddite fringe in the "conservative" movement. They have a hissy fit over it, I mean, they get rabid if you say "solar" or "insulation" or "think before you drive, is this trip really necessary?", etc, etc, etc. It's beyond me why that happens, but I've seen it in person and on various forums. Why this is,is strange, but it's reality. I think what some conservatives don't realize is that people who "talk" about green energy, conservation, alternatives, etc, just talk about it, and are watermelon greenies, in the private sector and in the progressive/socialist wing in politics, they don't really DO anything. People who actually DO what's necessary to be energy independent, or at least try to be, are all mostly traditional resourceful americans, tend to be much more pro-freedom, anti socialism, etc. There's perception and reality, it takes real world exposure to see the differences, not just internet theory and discussion. Ask any alternative energy dealer who his main customers are, you'd see what I was talking about. Very few leftists put their money where their mouths are. yes, there are exceptions obviously, but what I stated is more or less true.
Back to insulation. I worked on two different 'super insulated' homes, both retrofits, and several dozen partial retrofits to 'almost" super insulated values (R-55 for example), and a few new constructions that were built for off the grid long term usages that incorporasted a variety of fuels both fossil and alternative renewables. There are AMAZING differences in energy requirements for heating and cooling. The "payback" on actual good insulation as opposed to this typical "good cents" R-18 nonsense and massive leaks in buildings is very quick. Can't beat insulation! It's just not done much. I've seen 250,000$ houses in the atlanta metro area that were some of the worst energy hogs built, and joe average home owner and mortgage lender and inspector for that matter is clueless. They honestly have never even seen a well built structure. It doesn't require any real sort of high tech, just thicker walls, and tighter construction, and planned air in and air out in the home. For example, barring the use of extremely expensive materials, walls need to be 12 to 14 inches thick. that's it, you aren't getting real insulation values from a 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 exterior stud wall, it ain't happening. A good benefit of "superinsulation" standards in this terrorism age is that if you have a super insulated home, your entire home can be very easily modified to be a 'safe house" like the israeli "saferoom" concept, as regards chemicals and bio hazards, because you can easily add in the air filter technologies. Normal leaky houses and buildings are a bear to make them "safe", especially in panic mode in an emergency.. Even brand new expensive houses are still being constructed with 1940's or 50's insulation technology, maybe they have double pane windows, that's it. When I was in the retrofit business, we had some specs we worked from, generally speaking, a house of around 2,000 square feet has an average total air opening of 9 square feet. That is adding in all the window cracks, doorway cracks, pipes in and out, etc. That's a large hole in the wall when you think about it. That's why peoples air conditioners and furnaces come on constantly, convected energy loss, or conducted. tremendous losses, pay for it forever with heating and cooling bills 9requiring more energy usage, back to making do with less oil eventually down the energy food chain). Ask people if they would buy a house with a 20 year note with a 3 foot by 3 foot hole in the wall, totally open 24/7/365 and they would say you were nuts, they wouldn't do it. Banks wouldn't loan on it maybe, but that's reality in most homes, it's just not seen because it's in small cracks and holes all over, so "it doesn't exist". And most windows leak energy, even double pane, easily checked, just put your hand on even a double pane window, winter or summer, if it's real hot or real cold, there's an energy transfer point you pay for forever and ever.
One thing I think our nation should do is return to using trains more for freight and passengers, and develop clean burning and more efficient coal burning technologies for the trains. That would free up what oil reserves we have to a great extent. Coal we GOT in this nation, easily accessible. doesn't require much of a time lag or investment to use it, compared to a lot of other forms of energy. It can definetly be expanded in it's usages. it would just require some stroke o9of the pen law of the land action out of washington, some of the restrictions are beyond ridiculous. some are needed of course, some are nutso whacko. Trains are also pound per pound a much more efficient way to move things than airplanes or trucks, no comparison there.
I think we need to be totally energy independent, using ALL the technology and thinking and resources at our disposal. That would go quite a long way in freeing up our foreign policy to be more 'pro american" and not have to be continually modifying our stances on this or that foreign policy issue. Like right nowk, if we weren't shipping boatloads of greenbacks to the middle east for energy, well, abdul j nasty jihader would have a lot less scratch to fund his activities, wouldn't he? But, this cramps the style of our domestic oil guys who are so heavily invested into foreign oil that they 'see' no alternatives, they do not want to jeopardize that billion buck gravy train they have been on. Unfortunately, "those guys" seem to be in charge of things in this nation, and have been for a long time now. We wouldn't even be discussing this saudi arabia and potential loss of their oil from there if we had switched massively to "American energy independence" decades ago, but we didn't. Some drugged out despot over there with nukes could eliminate middle eastern oil in one hour, and there's a lot of nukes avaialble on this planet now I bet, more than "they" admit to.
Yes, but Europe and Japan would be in a bind.