It would merit the left greatly, as it's much more plausible than the "oil buddies" scenario.
IMO, The problem with the "strategic threat" argument is that I don't believe a majority of Americans will concur that this is sufficient cause to go to war.
If the author is right about the motivation, then we would be doing nothing more than forcing others to prop up our economy at gun point. Telling them, in effect: "Use dollars or we will take over your country and install someone who will.."
I don't think you can sell that to Americans by and large. I don't think it will fly, as we are a moral people.
I know I wouldn't support it.
Shades of gray.
From my perspective the author's premise was that this was a wilfull plot to weaken or cripple the US economy. An agressive act intending harm.
I agree that the typical US citizen won't buy that the possibility of a long range economic scheem offers a threat sufficient to warrant bloodshed.
Thankfully the average American doesn't usually direct our long range, startegic planning. However your point is taken and this argument will be removed from my talking points with typical Americans.