A picture of Turki al-Faisal as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States. Photo by Alex Brandon: AP

The new issue of Foreign Policy magazine includes a section called “Oil: The Long Goodbye.” The issue has several good articles, but the one by Turki al-Faisal brought a smile to my face. Turki, who briefly served as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, has also served as the head of Saudi intelligence. In his essay, “Don’t Be Crude,” Turki channels many of the points that I make in Gusher of Lies, saying that for US politicians, invoking the phrase “energy independence” is “now as essential as baby-kissing.” From there, Turki goes into a full-on indignant rant.

In Gusher of Lies, I pointed out that much of the energy independence rhetoric was coming from a small group of influential neoconservatives who were stridently anti-Saudi. Turki acknowledges that point, saying:

This "energy independence" motto is political posturing at its worst -- a concept that is unrealistic, misguided, and ultimately harmful to energy-producing and -consuming countries alike. And it is often deployed as little more than code for arguing that the United States has a dangerous reliance on my country of Saudi Arabia, which gets blamed for everything from global terrorism to high gasoline prices.

Last week, on this site, I wrote, again, that despite all the hype over renewable energy, hydrocarbons are here to stay. Turki shares that view:

There is no technology on the horizon that can completely replace oil as the fuel for the United States' massive manufacturing, transportation, and military needs; any future, no matter how wishful, will include a mix of renewable and nonrenewable fuels.

In Gusher of Lies, I discuss the reality of the global market, pointing out that we are interdependent in all kinds of commodities, ranging from iPods to fresh flowers. Turki agrees:

Efforts spent proselytizing about energy independence should instead focus on acknowledging energy interdependence.

In Gusher, as well as in Energy Tribune, and other publications, I have repeatedly discussed the Balkanization of the US motor fuel and shown how that practice contributes to higher prices at the pump. Turki, a smart guy, makes the same point:

Add to this problem another: "boutique oil," the different grades of gasoline required in different localities. I encountered one of these anomalies when I visited Chicago three years ago. There is an oil refinery 50 miles from Chicago, but it does not supply the city with gasoline because the grade does not comply with Chicago's standards. Instead, Chicago has to import its gas from the East Coast. Prices at the pump would be much lower if there were direct supplies from the refinery to the city.

In Gusher, I concluded by saying that the US had to move past the mirage of energy independence and accept the reality of interdependence. Here’s the conclusion to Turki’s essay:

The allure of demagoguery is strong, but US politicians must muster the courage to scrap the fable of energy independence once and for all. If they continue to lead their people toward the mirage of independence and forsake the oasis of interdependence and cooperation, only disaster will result.

Of course, given the antipathy that many Americans have toward Saudi Arabia, Turki’s statements may cause some people to squirm. The responses to Turki’s piece on Foreign Policy’s website are already showing a strong anti-Arab, anti-Saudi sentiment. No matter. Like it or not, interdependence – in everything from diesel fuel to microchips -- is the reality of the modern world. The sooner we accept that reality, the more prosperous and secure we will be.