Jefferson (Thomas, not George) warned against too-close relationships with other states.

If Prof. Juan Cole's analysis is credible, Saudis+France+England dragged the US kicking and screaming into the Libyan conflict.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html

Ignore the URL title; it's still about oil, only more generally and indirectly than usual.

At ~2M barrels/day, Libya is the world's 9th largest oil producer.  US oil use is about 20M barrels/day with a domestic production of 6M barrels/day.  The US must import the rest.

Saudi Arabia, France, and England are countries that want more access to Libyan oil.  The US, Italy, and China *already* have significant refinery assets in Libya, but only the US could be maneuvered into a military commitment.

I cannot imagine any positive inducements they could offer the US, but the negative ones are self-evident: the Saudis would drastically reduce OPEC oil quotas if the US *didn't* enter Libya.  With US/NATO involvement, OPEC has partially made up for the production shortfall.

Prior to the March ~21 start of the Libyan Civil War, spot oil was $80-90/barrel. Afterwards, Brent Crude oil prices rose to $125/barrel at the beginning of May and currently sit ~$118/barrel as of 6/14/2011.