Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian’s comments on energy and geopolitics in a speech to the IPAA’s 86th annual meeting in early November seem prescient in light of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Lebanon several days later.

The current director of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and former ambassador to Israel and Syria noted, in a discussion of direct-impact relationships between energy and geopolitics, that if Iran is allowed to rejoin the global energy market, it will need enormous foreign investments. This sort of opening can create common interests among Iran, the U.S. and Europe to help combat ISIS and insurgencies, he said.

“ISIS is a common threat to every single country in the [Middle Eastern] region, including Iran, and to the international community,” he said. “When there is a common enemy, it gives diplomacy a chance to build a broad and effective coalition, to contain and destroy ISIS. That’s the only good news about ISIS. There is the possibility, if we have the leadership, to contain and destroy it.”

He made clear another direct relationship—that between the divisions in the Middle East created by the Middle East Agreements of 1922, in the aftermath of World War I, and the chaos today. In the aftermath of World War I, France, Britain, Italy and Russia drew boundaries and sometimes invented countries “out of whole cloth,” he said, to serve their postcolonial interests.

The Arab Awakening that began in 2010 and 2011 heralded a “tectonic shift in the political landscape of the Middle East, in which mass uprisings are challenging the social contract between the Arab governments and the people in more than 12 countries,” he said.

The strife represents the end of that postcolonial period. “You can trace virtually every important crisis between the U.S. and the Middle East to the settlements of 1922: the Syrian/Lebanese conflicts; the creation of Palestine as a homeland for two peoples … the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait.

“The Iraqis never considered Kuwait an independent country,” he said. “I could go on and on. It’s important to know this, that we are living with the consequences of this.”

After World War II, dictators rose to power in the Middle East as military leaders “took off their uniforms and put on a civilian suit and became presidents for life,” he said.

Whether dictatorships or monarchies, these societies enjoyed some stability and security because they were ruled by iron hands. But stability came at a cost: poor education systems, systemic corruption, inability to promote the private sector to create jobs for fast-rising numbers of youth, humanitarian deficits, and lack of human rights and political participation, he said. These problems smoldered during the Cold War as the U.S. and Russia turned a blind eye.

The revolution sparked in Tunisia was remarkable: “totally grass roots—from the bottom up,” he said. It galvanized revolution throughout the Middle East. While autocracy has returned to many countries, bear in mind one thought, he said: “It’s not over. The fact that it happened is critical, because it shows that there are generational changes in the greater Middle East.”

The economic and political costs of the revolutions have been horrific. The Arab-built monarchies have had to spend heavily on welfare packages to maintain social and political stability and buttress the legitimacy of their regimes. “The human costs are far greater,” he said. “The Syrian civil war has killed 280,000 people, displaced 7 million and forced more than 4 million to flee. The result is the refugee crisis in Europe and, more importantly, in the Middle East itself. “One-quarter of Lebanon’s population now is made up of Syrian refugees.

Tunisia and Egypt offer hope, because secular parties are in the majority currently. “It’s a hopeful sign in a sea of chaos,” he said.

Events since the revolutions highlight the increasing limitations of the U.S. and world communities in influencing the outcome, he said.

“My strong view is that we, despite remaining a preeminent power, can’t really, in any major way, influence the direction of what is happening in the Muslim world today.

“Throughout the Muslim world there is a struggle for ideas between the forces of moderation and those of radicalism and extremism. The outcome will define where they go in the future. We have a critical interest in moderation prevailing.”

The U.S. needs a sound policy framework, however. “We’ve used a short-term, crisis management approach and relied on counterterrorism operations (which I support) and humanitarian aid (which I support) to moderate threats and mitigate fallout from the Syrian civil war, for example.

“But this approach, without a broader strategic vision, has created a perception around the world and in Arab capitals that our policy is not coherent, is too timid, and is unguided. This opens the door for other players to play a role—Iran and Iraq in Syria, for example; Russia in Syria; Saudi Arabia in Yemen—and also risks us being drawn back into conflicts in times of circumstances not of our choosing.

“If you don’t have a coherent foreign policy, you’ll become a victim of events and not a shaper of events. We need leadership—and I say this in a totally nonpartisan way—that can strategize with our national security interests and our values, then put out fires and go beyond that.”

Discussing the potential lifting of sanctions on Iran’s production, the ambassador said, “Despite the perception of Iran as an autocratic country, there is actually a contentious domestic political struggle taking place between the supreme leader and elements that are willing to engage with the outside world and with the U.S.”

He said February would be an early signal of the country’s direction, when elections are held to elect the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Assembly of Experts.

As regards Saudi Arabia’s role and the U.S. shale revolution, Djerejian said the country has kept oil production high for three reasons: to protect market shale, with a focus on Asia, given the potential for Iran oil to come back on; to satisfy its demand for refining and petrochemical feedstock and associated natural gas production for electrical power generation; and to discourage investment in U.S. shale.

Further, energy subsidies and a lack of economic diversification are beginning to seriously strain the government’s budget, he said. All these factors limit the Saudi’s space to maneuver to project power in support of Syrian elements, in Yemen, and elsewhere.

Just as revolutions have destabilized the Middle East, the U..S. shale revolution is reshaping the geopolitics of energy, he said. LNG exports alter market share for Gazprom and the sources available to supply growing economies in Asia. And, the availability of oil supplies from a stable region such as North America increases global energy security, he said. “Just as with LNG, U.S. oil exports could be transformational for trade, pricing and geopolitics,” he said.

Given this picture, is the notion of severing ties with the Middle East realistic? “No, we have many important national security interests in the Middle East beyond oil,” he said. “Oil and gas are global commodities and therefore it is not rational to think you can segment the oil economy through politics.”

The long-term effects of shale resources are harder to discern, particularly since international development is in its infancy. Significant shale resources have been assessed in Argentina, China and Australia but markets, regulatory institutions and access to services are lacking.

Still, the geopolitical implications of the shale revolution are fundamental to an understanding of the global environment that emerges over the coming decades, he said. “I firmly believe that given the energy resources of our country, coupled with Canada and Mexico, that emergence in the 21st century of North America as a formidable political and economic force cannot be overestimated.

“When crisis erupts in the Middle East, as it inevitably will, the oil dependency factor is not as strong,” he said. “You can exert American power, be more creative in foreign policy because you have the oil and gas assets behind you.

“So yes, we can use oil and gas as parallels to military might. That’s the great art of diplomacy, especially for a superpower, using military might as a backdrop to our diplomacy.”

Susan Klann can be reached at sklann@hartenergy.com