Well I guess if one wants to take a very biased stance on the subject, then you're right. But then one has to explain why we don't seriously talk about going to war with other areas that we could take a lot of oil from. The middle east is not the only option here.
Even if that were true, that's shoddy logic. I mean, suppose they were attacking someone else: then you could say "it's not about oil, because then we could also be attacking the Middle East". I mean, lol.
Also, it's not true. Unless you want to ignore how much indirect attacking the US did in South America in the last century, or want to suggest attacking Russia or China right away, of course.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
We are not dealing with an isolated area. We are dealing with an area that is very well interconnected not just to us, but for rest of the world. We are an interconnected society.
You could say that about anything. Anything you can say about anything, says nothing. So I can only shrug. That's all technically correct, but it simply doesn't say anything.
And hey exactly BECAUSE we're an interconnected society, not a few people who aren't even Americans care more about and have more clue about what the US is doing, than the people in whose name and with whose money it's being done. However, that's a ******** argument for attacking Iran. "We're an interconnected society". It's "of strategic interest". Hmmkay.