I wonder if the US needs to use its current energy position to increase investment in alternative energy. The shale 'revolution' has been driven by oil prices in excess of $100 a barrel, making an expensive mode of production profitable, but fracking needs staggering amounts of water for wells that don't seem to last for more than 5 years -in the Middle East wells are still pumping oil from fields that were opened up in the 1930s.
In the Middle East there has for years been a vast literature on the 'resource curse' and economic diversification, as oil is seen to have distorted the organic development of the economies there, on the basis that if you can't make it, buy it. When you look at the figures which show Abu Dhabi, for example, raking in millions of $$ a month in the 1960s, which became $$ billions in the 1970s you can begin to understand that.
There is also the well-known quote My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel variously attributed.
To add to the problem the state has been the primary economic actor, and within the state either elites (as in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia) or the military (Egypt, Syria and Iraq) have commandeered so many parts of the economy that all a form of liberalization has done is increase the distance between the majority of people and the profits generated by local business. Even in Israel, which has been able to link its economy to a globalised economy without having to deal with its nearest neighbours, the gulf between the successful beneficiaries and the rest is the difference between being able to afford an apartment in Tel Aviv or having to live with your parents into your 30s and beyond.
The 'Arab Spring' was in part a reaction against the huge numbers of young people growing up without a job in a society where there is no real jobs market as salaried positions are either available only to certain people based on religious sect, family connections, tribal loyalty whatever, or where individuals actually pay a government official to get a job -one of the scandals in the Iraqi Army under Nouri al-Maliki is that officers were being appointed because they could pay Maliki and his cronies to get the job, thereafter using their position to extract their own benefits from the local economy.
The resource deficit that is expected to follow the decline of oil ought not to be a problem, Singapore and Japan are two successful states that are bereft of basic natural resources, particularly in Japan, so natural resource deficits on their own can be surmounted. This is the basis of the long term growth strategies in Abu Dhabi and Dubai though I don't really see either place as a tourist destination even if the weather is great in the middle of winter.
I also have no idea what IS believe in with regard to the economy. At the moment their economy is based on ransom payments, bank robberies, extortion, and illegal sales of oil, none of which look promising in the long term. The sad irony is that many of the young Britons going to Syria and Iraq are not uneducated or unemployed, but young people with bright prospects -one was a medical student- heading off to fight with young men who have no prospects at all, not least because the assumption is that IS cannot win a military victory against its opponents and that its days are numbered.
In the end, the question, where are the new jobs going to come from? Is as applicable to the Middle East as in the UK and the US. Tough times ahead for all, I think.
Some articles on this issue here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...b_4926484.html
http://democracyjournal.org/28/the-s...rab-future.php