Within a decade, governments will formalise energy policy into national security policy. If war is too important to be left to generals, energy is too important to be left to free-marketeers. And America is likely to lead the way.

Libertarian purists are correct when they argue that entrepreneurs make for more efficient exploration and distribution. But governments are deeply involved in the oil business anyway, as they control territory in which oil reserves sit. Moreover, the business bottom line cannot account for energy's externalities, from ballooning trade imbalances to global warming. Surging prices -- to $73 per barrel yesterday and counting -- make the oil industry an even fatter target. But most importantly, if national security seems to be jeopardised by chaotic market conditions, then calculations of economic efficiency will take a backseat to considerations of political sovereignty.

Today, many oil-price players already hold the "invisible hand" in their mean grip -- that is, they are denying market forces through cartels and coercion. We know about the power of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but let us not underestimate the power of "Nimeby" ("not in my economic backyard"), as seen, for example, when the US Congress blocked the China National Offshore Oil Company from buying Unocal. Meanwhile, other disparate figures -- Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Nigerian rebels and Iraqi insurgents -- are affecting oil prices through their own non-market mechanisms. And the looming showdown between the US and Iran could well have a triple-digit effect on oil prices.

Oil is that most paradoxical of substances: extremely valuable, extremely necessary and extremely dangerous, in terms of supply vulnerability. So the free market can no longer be oil's arbiter; politicians purporting to represent all stakeholders are claiming the final word on energy usage. OPEC has already cartelised the producing nations; we are now likely to see a counter-cartel of consuming nations.

What sort of consumer coalition? The International Energy Agency, headquartered in Paris, was founded in the wake of the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, mostly as a data-collector. It could well take on a larger role in energy politics, although the US, the biggest consumer, is unlikely to follow anything France-based. Moreover, huge international organisations, such as the United Nations, are increasingly unwieldy. The effective organisation today, by contrast, is more narrowly focused and small -- as in small executive committee. OPEC, for instance, is dominated by one closed little country, Saudi Arabia, and OPEC delivers for its members. So an oil-consumers' cartel is likely to start small. Like the NATO alliance, it might well be dreamed up by one country, then expanded across continents.

In fact, a proto-NATO for energy is already in the offing. Richard Lugar, the alliance-minded chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, last month introduced the Energy Diplomacy and Security Act. The bill declares that America, for reasons of state, should have "an energy policy that pursues the strategic goal of achieving energy security through access to clean, affordable, sufficient, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy." These might seem like buzzwords, but the bill contains blueprints as well, such as strategic energy partnerships and hemisphere energy co-operation forums. In a crisis -- say, if a war with Iran sends prices soaring -- these bureaucratic kernels could sprout into effective policy, resolving structures and, in the spirit of NATO, enhance cooperation among allied countries.

Such ideas are not entirely new. So Mr. Lugar's bill is unlikely to receive much attention -- until the next crunch. But if that crunch comes hard enough, the Indiana Republican might be remembered as a prophet of energy strategy -- in the way his Republican senatorial predecessor, Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, is remembered as a prophet of fiscal policy and father of US central banking. Eventually, some sort of "Energy Federal Reserve" will emerge in the US, holding statutory power to negotiate internationally and domestically, and manage supply and demand. Such dirigiste manipulation will horrify many, but the oil companies, defensive over high profits and high salaries, will not be in a position to complain. And if America leads, the rest of the world -- always more comfortable with statist solutions -- will surely happily follow.