Reading some of the coverage of King Abdullah’s state visit to Britain, I suddenly had a flash — just a flash, mind you — of the reasoning inside the pristine mind of Tony Blair, deciding, years ago, to hitch himself to the US no matter what. The media talk of human rights violations seemed far removed from the reality of national politics, because it is clear that the Saudis don’t need Britain. But Brits desperately need them.

If researchers are right and world oil production has already peaked then the Saudi princes are only just beginning their reign. They are entering a golden period where they — with, perhaps, China’s leaders — stand aloft from the rules of the world, in a way few countries that don’t possess significant military strength can.

It’s interesting to see how the Arab papers have covered King Abdullah’s visit — seeing Britain as just the first stop on the Saudi king’s European tour and highlighting his intention to discuss major regional issues, rather than simply trade with Britain. For the Saudis, Britain is just another high-spending customer, pleading that the oil taps are kept on.

This despite energy security long being a central plank of Britain’s foreign policy. Perhaps that’s what Blair thought he was doing rushing into Iraq: securing resources. If so, it was a catastrophic misjudgment. The Iraq adventure has made Britain more — not less — dependent on a handful of countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran among them. If Iraq takes decades to rebuild, then we lose secure oil supplies from there for a generation, by which time the world will look very different.

None of which is to suggest Britain ought to stop pointing out the shortcomings of the Saudi government but its leverage is limited. The regional instability caused directly by the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (most notably the rise of Iran) has pushed the naturally cautious Saudi ruling family further away from significant reform. With jihadis at home and wars abroad, the Saudis have enough on their plates without rocking the domestic boat.

Moreover Britain isn’t really in a position to dictate reform to Riyadh. Yes, the Saudis would like access to Britain’s military market — but they are just as happy to take their billions to France or the US. Worse, every other market is hungry for their oil, China and India especially. Selling to just 60 million people doesn’t look so profitable when a third of the world is clamouring for energy. Nor is there a petulant pride to be gained from military strength: aside from the horrors and humiliations of Iraq, it has been decades since Britain took troops into West Asia without US support. If it came right down to it, who would the US side with: Britain or their 243m cars? No, wait, don’t answer that.

What makes the situation so awful is the inescapability of it. If there is no petrol on the forecourts and no food delivered to the stores, the last thing on anyone’s mind will be human rights. Worse, there’s little somebody can do about it now. Had more far-sighted counsels prevailed years ago, Britain might, just, be close to alternative sources of energy. Pumping the estimated £5bn the war in Iraq has cost the British Treasury into renewable energy research would have done more for energy security than any war — and given politicians a more equitable platform from which to make their criticisms of Saudi Arabia’s government.

Absent that — it’s an awful metaphor, but it’s sadly true — the Saudis have got Britain over an oil barrel.

Guardian