Without questioning the Feffer's major point, which is well taken, I must state that the article creates itself some problems by falling well short of what might be said. This is a matter of inaccuracy, not caution.
Basically, Feffer assumes that Obama has a "peace policy" as opposed to a war policy. Peace would be easy to achieve: he could quit attacking people. He could quit destabilizing countries. He could quit occupying invaded territories. Instead, Obama and his administration continue killing in over a half-dozen countries strung to either side of the Central Asian hydroccarbon fields. Neither his administration nor those of his predecessors publicly announced any coherent strategy that was consistent with their actions.
One could imagine that they were all just idiots or stumblebums, but Occam's Razor suggests a cleaner explanation: they're lying again. The actual strategy is consistent with the actions; the announcements are consistent with the execution of that strategy, which depends on keeping the population ignorant and cooperative.
I don't have a direct line to the White House, to the Rothschilds or the Sauds, so unless some one of you do, I suggest that we try to extrapolate from their actions.
What strategy and what world understanding could drive the actions that the US government and businesses take?
Probably neither of us have time for a book, so let me just float this idea, and anyone should feel free to amend or refute it. It appears to me that the principle strategy here is not to take the oil and gas so much as to control it, to stop someone else from having it. The philosophical framework would seem to be Hobbesian in that they assume that humans are intrinsically either evil or selfish or uncooperative or similar, so that releasing power does not make for human liberation, but rather a cascade of violence in the resulting power vacuum. They will flatter themselves, then, that they are realists; and they will flatter themselves that their oppression of subjects, taking the wide view, beneficial. When they have dried the rivers and killed the soil and turned the wood and fuel to ash, they will say, "See? I was right: humans are lousy."
From that initial catastrophic folly, the rest follows.
* They kill to control because they must to stop greater violence (they think).
* They lie to kill because humans generally do not wish to kill each other (folly, they think, not compassion).
We are apt to be hit by the blowback, but we are also apt to be hit by the direct action: the CIA will exercise its population control here more drastically as soon as it regards that as useful.