If that mishap had not occurred, it's very likely that the United States would have a vastly different, and superior, position vis-à-vis energy independence today. The U.S. could have moved down a similar path to that of France, which generates most of its electricity -- some 78 percent -- from nuclear power plants. Some of the side benefits the French enjoy as a result include much cleaner skies, since nuclear power plants have zero carbon emissions. It has also meant that Paris can move ahead with commitments to reduce greenhouse gases without damaging the country's economic health, in a way that Washington cannot. Nuclear energy also guaranteed a reliable source of electricity to power France's TGV high-speed rail network. By contrast, one barrier to California's plans to develop its own high-speed rail system is that it would require .5 percent of the state's electrical power, at a time when Sacramento has also committed itself to producing a third of its power from renewable energy sources. (The Golden State alone is the 12th-largest source of greenhouse gases in the world.) But in light of California's rolling blackouts in electrical power as demand continues to outstrip supply, the state might find it difficult to keep such a project functioning.

Finally, a "full speed ahead" commitment to nuclear power could have been pursued while also assuaging the concerns of the coal industry. Congress could have funded the research and development effort to make the technology for producing fuel from coal more practical and cost-efficient -- and mandated that the U.S. government purchase the finished product for the strategic reserve as well as for use by the military. Consider that today, even with the energy reduction and conservation measures that have been announced by the Pentagon, the military's nearly insatiable demand for fuel still redirects a portion of the U.S. defense budget to an interesting mix of geopolitical beneficiaries, among them the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

A utopian view? Perhaps -- but not outside the realm of possibility either.

That brings us to the Deepwater Horizon. In his remarks on Tuesday, President Barack Obama called for an effort comparable to the Apollo moon program to end the U.S. "addiction to fossil fuels." Yet prior to the accident, the Obama administration had come to the conclusion that part of that longer-term transition from oil included further developing and exploiting domestic sources for hydrocarbons, since we're not likely to kick our addiction anytime soon. Moreover, given the increased global competition for oil, the U.S. cannot be sure that foreign suppliers will give the U.S. preferential treatment in the future. The dramatic fall in oil prices that followed the world recession of 2008 did not usher in a new era of cheap energy. As China, India and other rising economies recover, their resurging demand -- one of the key factors that led to the high prices of the last decade -- is again pushing prices upwards.

Expanded offshore drilling was meant to provide the U.S. economy with some breathing room -- and Washington with some geopolitical flexibility: With sanctions against Iran unlikely to induce Tehran to abandon its desire for a nuclear-weapons breakout capability, the possibility of an armed conflict in the Persian Gulf cannot be ruled out. Certainly some of the reluctance on the part of many nations to confront Tehran comes from their dependence on the energy it exports, a consideration that Washington must also factor in to its strategic calculations. But even were they to begin right away, it's unlikely that new offshore oil projects would be up and running in time to help take up the slack in the event of any disruption of supplies from the Persian Gulf. 

Now, unexpectedly, there is a moratorium on any new offshore drilling. Moreover, we are likely to see renewed and energized opposition to opening new sites for exploration and exploitation off the shores of Florida and California. Former National Security Adviser Robert Macfarlane has talked about the need for "breathing room" to allow the U.S. to transition to new sources of energy. America's own offshore reserves have now effectively been taken off the table.

Four years ago, speaking about he called the "liquids crisis," or the lack of any immediate replacement fuel for petroleum to power vehicles, Former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger warned, "The inability readily to expand the supply of oil, given rising demand, will in the future impose a severe economic shock. Inevitably, such a shock will cause political unrest -- and could impact political systems." 

With the administration's energy policy knocked out of kilter, the U.S. now finds its ability to deal with that liquids crisis even more impaired. Add to that the continued deep suspicion of nuclear power in the U.S., reinforced by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, and the ability of special interests to continue to block other possible options for energy "breathing room," such as Brazilian ethanol. 

As a result it is increasingly unlikely that the U.S. will make any significant changes in its energy posture. The old dependencies will remain in place. On a whole host of issues, from climate change to Middle East policy, the Obama administration will not be able to lay the foundation for major changes -- all because of an unfortunately timed Gulf oil spill.

**Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest, and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect those of the Navy or the U.S. government. His weekly WPR column, The Realist Prism, appears every Friday.