[gwright]

The assertion seems to be that US actions served to keep prices down (subsidized the market). It isn't clear to me what line of reasoning gets to that conclusion though with respect to military actions in the Middle East.

Markets like stability, doesn't much matter to the market if that stability comes from an authoritarian or a liberal democracy or something in-between so the claim that US military actions were some sort of stealthy, planned effort to subsidize the price of oil doesn't make sense to me.

The instability and the associated price increases in the oil market could be interpreted as a subsidy to other parts of the energy market by making it easier for them to compete against oil. Most businesses are pretty happy when something causes their competitor's production costs or selling price to increase.