Re: So if I have this straight
I thought the reason the Saudi's were doing it was to screw up investment in western shale oil which would wipe out a lot of their customers.
Worse, from their point of view is that if the US/UK don't need to obtain oil from the middle east then we have no further geopolitical reason to attempt to stabilise the middle east.
You see, Saudi Arabia funded most of the terrorist organisations. Given, not because they have any particular love of them but because if you don't pay them then they start operating in Saudi Arabia, and paying them was simpler and not particularly harmful. Now they have a large group of terrorists they funded setting up a country on their doorstep. Oops. Still, it's ok. The US/UK can be relied on to do the dirty work in removing ISIS. As long as we don't get fed up, and tell the middle eastern countries to deal with it themselves instead of paying terrorists protection money.
It'd actually be good for the middle eastern countries to deal with this sort of thing themselves. Western countries developed through civil wars, revolts and revolutions and the middle eastern countries need to do the same to progress.
At the moment I think a lot of people would be quite happy to leave the middle eastern countries to it. However, we can't because we actually have to buy oil from them. But not for long, if shale oil takes off. That we might be in a position to say "your on your own" genuinely scares them.
From their point of view, dropping prices by 35% screws up shale oil investment, keeps us in the middle east to deal with the problem they created by funding terrorists for years and it also dents ISIS's income from oil revenue.