Finally, the U.S. energy independence debate has taken a significant step towards a more serious discussion for what this actually means for Washington’s place in the world. As anyone reading my analysis (not just in Forbes, but around the world) will be aware, I’ve been banging the drum rather too loudly on the downside complexities this could bring for America. Being contrarian is a lonely place compared to pervasive group think that constitutes the ‘trans-Atlantic energy debate’ these days, but it never ceases to amaze me once the penny drops, how quickly analytical outliers become mainstream questions everyone asks. Cue Dan Yergin’s FT op-ed over the weekend, ‘US Energy Is Changing The World Again’. Get past all the normal stuff on American oil and gas gains, and Mr. Yergin finally poses some interesting conundrums:

‘It is still far from clear how this shift will affect the strategic balance in the Gulf and the Middle East and US engagement – especially given the rising tension over Iran’s nuclear programme and the instability throughout the region. The debate about these considerations will be stirred by America’s future fiscal negotiations. But the question will not really be addressed until the crisis with Iran is resolved. One geopolitical impact is already clear. Rising US oil production, along with increased Saudi output, has helped provide offsetting supplies that have made the sanctions on Iranian oil much more successful than anticipated a year ago.

via U.S. Energy Independence: A Small Sanity Check – Forbes.