The article is flawed for two reasons:
- it refuses to abandon the idea that the war was fought for oil, even when everything in the article conclusively proves that it could not possibly have been fought for oil; and
- it falls back on a no less silly argument - which is largely that of the American isolationist Right - that you can no longer control resources by fighting wars, based on the conservative view of the supremacy of international trade and markets.
Falling back on market explanations won't help. The market doesn't explain years of Saudi cooperation, and the decision in the last few years that Saudi cooperation will become much more selective. It doesn't explain why every major oil company in the world that isn't associated with the Anglo-American Empire is getting hugely lucrative deals in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East). The rest of the world is completely fed up with Americans squandering their wealth on Wars For The Jews, partly because of the extreme immorality of these wars, and partly because of their extreme stupidity. People who have cooperated with the inevitability of American strength for decades have decided that they no longer can do business with people who are so stupid they can't even grasp their own basic self-interest. Oil development contracts are being awarded on the basis of ideology. Markets have very little to do with it.
The article is a classic example of what happens when you try to deal with a subject while avoiding the only issue that matters.