All nation-states attempt to influence their neighbors, friends and rivals in order to promote their own security and prosperity. Great powers due it on a global scale. That's just a fact of life, and has been so since Pharaoh's time. The alternative is isolationism, and we know that doesn't work. Short of that, there are gradations, from alliances and treaties and neotiations, ranging all the way to war.

Sure, there are risks and possibilities for abuse and downright stupidity, but I see little alternative. Foreign policy is not an exact science, and sometimes it fails, and sometimes it succeeds. As long as fighting can be avoided, or at least postponed for a better time, then it is a success. Your concerns are correct, and sometimes this leads to worse problems, but I see little choice. It takes two to make peace, but only one to make war.

Until the time comes when that cruel calculus no longer applies, the only moral course is to try and influence events in our favor without trampling on the affairs of others, and with a consistent foreign policy based on fairness and restraint, more carrot than stick, but with the stick nearby just in case. The Cold War showed us that, it was dangerous and difficult, but the alternative was avoided. We didn't win the Cold War, the whole world did.

The interruption of energy supplies would be a tragedy not only to the industrialized West, but to the producing states as well. It could well end civilization on this planet for a thousand years; a post-apocalyptic Earth would not be able to drill offshore or build nuclear power plants or exploit solar power or travel to other planets. And we've already seen how the premature application of military force can be totally counter-productive. The only alternative is to get our way by making sure our potential rivals realize that they will benefit too, and that if we suffer, so will they.