although it had nothing to do with improving energy efficiency or development of alternatives to fossil fuels.
The Reagan energy plan was to foment/prolong war between Iraq and Iran. The 1979 Iranian Revolution scared the Saudis and their western partners sheikless and so Iraq was approached and embraced to be the western bulwark against Islamic revolution spreading westwards. This may be one reason the
Saddam = Hitler equation leaped so readily to G. H. W. Bush's mind in the run up to the first US war on Iraq. Before Hitler turned on them, British foreign policy and Anglo-American finance and industry zealously built Hitler up to be their bulwark against armed Bolshevist revolution spreading westwards from the U.S.S.R., as well as a prophylaxis against tradeunionism and Social Democracy in the heart of industrial Europe.
War between Iraq and Iran had two prospective benefits: first and most obviously to weaken revolutionary Iran. If fortune smiled, the Iranian Islamic regime might suffer a total military defeat in the field and even if not, it could be so weakened by the war that it might be toppled from within by counterrevolution. Even if Iran did not lose the war outright and did not collapse internally it would at least be prevented from spreading its Islamist ideology beyond its borders by having to focus on saving itself. Second, war between these two large oil producers meant that they would not abide by OPEC production quotas. To fund their war efforts they would sell all the oil they could pump and deliver without it being destroyed by the enemy - and since they were disregarding production quotas so did the other OPEC nations. The artificial scarcity imposed by OPEC quotas dissolved and oil prices dropped. To keep the war alive, the Reagan Administration would find opportunities to aid both sides. The Iraq-Iran War was the longest running major nation conflict of the 20th century, at 10 years of hostilities, and claimed over a million lives in direct battlefield fatalities.
I call that an "energy plan" because it is clear, now that we have lived through the second Bush's reign, that war remains the conservative's version of an energy plan. War is the first, second and last choice of a conservative facing a resource shortfall or commodity price levels that he doesn't like. We had thought that wars to seize or access mineral resources were banished in the international order created after WWII, which was itself largely begun by conservative nationalists looking to seize mineral/fuel resources, but we deceived ourselves. Fossil fuels may be running out now, but dinosaur thinking is just as abundant as ever. Witnessing the events of the last 8 years and hearing the comments of an administration run by "oil men" that
the American way of life is not negotiable, and that
energy conservation is strictly a personal "virtue" it is undeniable and patently obvious that warfare is the Bush family energy policy and the longstanding Republican Party energy policy (all the way back to the Kissinger Plan to seize Saudi oilfields). This understanding provides a lens that brings distant events of the 1980s into sharper focus: these things--the Iraq-Iran War, the undermining of OPEC solidarity, the drop of oil price levels-- didn't "just happen" as a happy accident of history. The Reagan Administration didn't just fight a geopolitical / ideological struggle against Revolutionary Iran with the unintentional side benefit of securing cheap oil for our cars for another 15 years,
cheap oil is the only ideology they ever cared about, and we have been fighting increasingly bloody wars for it one way or another since Reagan took office.