Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil war
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Raymond
May 26, 2012, 7:30:15 PM5/26/12
to
Iraq is seen as an oil war
George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
war. Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bush’s ascendancy
to power. By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region
through establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq,
the US would be in a position to not only check the
maneuverability of OPEC but also to influence conduct of other
powers around the globe as the US military dismantled Iraq's
nationalized oil industry.
Israel also benefited from the American invasion of Iraq.
Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa
The Observer
By Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he
expected an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the
near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.
"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.
"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."
Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.
Shalom:
"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to
Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential
future government figures in Baghdad.The plan envisages the
reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the
British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's
northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa (Kirkuk oil fields were said to contain
perhaps 40% of Iraq's oil), and partly to bring oil deals to his
personal friends, such as Ray L. Hunt. Small American oil companies
like Hunt Oil will extract Kurdish oil as soon as and if Mosul and
Kirkuk are broken off from Iraq (17 November 2007). Mosul is the first
stop for Kirkuk oil
Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US guaranteed all
Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This MoU is quietly
renewed every five years. It commits US taxpayers to maintain a
strategic US reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002
dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from
restrictions on oil exports from the US. Moreover, the US government
agreed to divert oil from the US, even in case of oil shortages in the
US. The US government also guaranteed delivery of oil in US tankers if
commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the
US to Israel.
SEE
Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding
(September 1, 1975)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
Israel can wrench lot of oil from the region if the pipeline were used
again and Kurds were willing to sell the oil. It would also make Kurds
dependent on Israelis for oil revenues and thus give a greater
leverage to Israelis over Kurds of the region...
"Who owns the oil owns the world." In 2009, Gaddafi proposed
nationalizing Libya's oil reserve. ... Nationalization of a country's
resources is often a cause for invasion. .Gaddafi lost his oil and his
life.
In the early 1970s, Saddam nationalized oil and other industries and
through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses
of government as oil money helped Iraq's economy to grow at a rapid
pace. Nationalizing the oil upset British and American oil company
executives and in March 2003, a coalition of countries led by the U.S.
and U.K. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, after U.S. President George W.
Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair falsly accused him of
possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda.
SEE:
The US invasion of Iraq: Oil, the Mother of all Factors?
August 2005
By: K. Hooshiyar & S. Karimi
Even though the prolonged contemplation of the United States on
consolidating its hold over oil resources in Iraq was not
incorporated into officially declared reasons for the invasion of
Iraq , oil factor was nonetheless one of the primary motives
lurking beneath the Bush administration’s determination to topple
Saddam from power. Long before the attack on the twin towers in
New York that provided an auspicious ground for the Bush
administration to sharpen its sword, removing Saddam from the seat
of power was a part and parcel of a protracted deliberation within
the US administration to redesign the international order in
American image. A blueprint for U.S. global domination, entitled
Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a
New Century, which was written in September 2000 by the neo-
conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
called for the creation of a ''global Pax Americana.'' The PNAC
document supports a ''blueprint for maintaining global US pre-
eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests''. This ''American grand strategy'' must be advanced ''as
far into the future as possible'', the report says. It also calls for
the US to ''fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
theatre wars'' as a ''core mission''.
While Afghanistan was the first victim of the new “American grand
strategy” for the world, Iraq was the main target even prior to George
Bush’s ascendancy to power. As PNAC document reveals, George Bush and
his cabinet had planned to topple Saddam’s regime even before he took
power in January 2001. A report entitled Strategic Energy Policy:
Challenges For The 21st Century, commissioned before 9/11 by Vice-
president Dick Cheney on ''energy security'' clearly identifies Iraq
as a major “de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to
international markets from the Middle East.” The report furthermore
concludes that “Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to
threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to
manipulate oil markets.” It was based on such reports that President
Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that “ Iraq remains a
destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the
US ''military intervention'' is necessary.
Oil definitely plays a major role in the “American grand design” for
the world, more so for the Middle East. The Middle East—and
specifically the Persian Gulf region which contains almost 30 percent
of global oil production. But it has about 67 percent of the planet’s
known reserves, and is therefore the only region able to satisfy any
substantial rise in world oil demand—an increase that the Bush
administration’s energy policy documents say is inevitable. The
access to oil and more so the continuous and guaranteed access to
cheap oil is vital for the economies of advanced capitalist countries
requires securing political control of the area. If the United States
succeeds in acquiring an upper hand to play a permanent role in the
Persian Gulf regional security, an objective that the US has been
seeking since World War II, it will definitely consolidate its global
economic, military, and political supremacy for decades to come.
With its known oil reserves standing at 112 billion barrels, second
only to Saudi Arabia, Iraq occupies a very important strategic
position in the Gulf region. Since the discovery of oil, Iraq has
been a scene of imperialist rivalries for the dominance and control of
its vast oil wealth. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
Britain directly ruled Egypt, Sudan, and the Persian Gulf, while
France was the dominant power in Lebanon and Syria. Iran was divided
between British and Russian spheres of influence. After World War I,
Britain also got the mandate for Palestine and Iraq. With Germany’s
defeat in the war, its stake in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which
had the concession for the whole of Iraq, fell into Britain’s table.
Britain’s complete dominance, though it had the largest empire among
the imperialist powers, was not unchallenged. A declining British
empire, unable to compete with other industrial economies, desperately
tried to use its exclusive grip over its colonies to strengthen its
economy. The United States as the emerging new superpower and the
leading capitalist power, however, sought an “open door” to exploit
the possessions of the waning colonizing powers.
By 1928, two American oil companies, Jersey Standard and Socony
(known today as the merged Exxon and Mobil) with active backing of the
US government, got a 23.75 % share in the Turkish Petroleum Company,
later renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). The rest of the
shares were held by the British, French, and Royal Dutch-Shell oil
companies. Britain continued its direct and indirect rule over Iraq
in the turbulent period 1925–1958. During this period, growing
opposition to colonial rule forced Britain to grant Iraq
“independence” in 1932. But Britain managed to continue its colonial
rule indirectly and through installed puppet kings and regimes.
With the overthrow of national government of Dr. Muhammad Mosaddeq in
Iran in 1953, who nationalized the British Petroleum in 1951, through
a CIA-led coup, the United States signalled its emergence as the new
imperial force in the region, gradually replacing the British
predominance. The main task of this new gendarme and ruler of the
Gulf region was to ensure capitalist expansion, back the interests of
U.S. multinational corporations, and suppress any agitation against
imperialism and its client states. Since then, the United States has
steadily increased its influence in keeping the Gulf region in its
geopolitical orbit—and maintaining its claim on the region’s most
valuable resources-oil. The increasing American investments to advance
its interests have included direct and indirect forms of intervention,
massive arms transfers to allies, and the acquisition of military
bases.
After Iran, Iraq was the second country that became the target of
direct US imperial policy, when its pro-Western, British-installed
monarchy was overthrown in 1953 - the first puppet regime to be
overthrown in an oil-producing country. In July 1958 an army faction
led by Abdul Karim Qasim seized power in Iraq, executed the king and
declared Iraq a republic. Fearing that Iraq might turn communist under
the new military regime and worrying about its oil interests, the
United States delivered an ultimatum to the new regime by threatening
to invade Iraq. In order to corroborate the credibility of its
threat, U.S. stationed its troops in Jordan and Lebanon and did not
pull them backed until it got assurances from the new regime in
Baghdad that U.S. oil interests will not be jeopardized.
The anti-colonial sentiments of the Iraqi people and their high
expectations from the new government, however, posed a growing danger
to U.S. interests in Iraq. Under rising tide of public pressure,
Qasim’s regime undertook several anti-imperialist measures contrary to
its previous assurances. The most important of which were: limiting
IPC’s concession area by issuing “law 80” in 1961 and the subsequent
formation of a new Iraqi owned oil company in 1963; withdrawing Iraq
from the Baghdad Pact; ordering British forces out of Iraq; signing an
economic and technical aid deal with the Soviet Union; and cancelling
the American aid program. These measures proved detrimental not only
to the US interests in Iraq, but also to his own regime.
In a temporary alliance of convenience with the Ba’ath (Renaissance)
Party, the United States actively backed a successful coup against
Qasim’s regime. The coup was staged only four days after the
announcement of the formation of the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC)
to develop the non-concession lands in 1963. CIA agents provided
critical logistical information to the coup plotters and supplied
lists with the names of hundreds of suspected Communists to be
eliminated. The first act of the new government was the granting of
more concession areas to the IPC, including the rich Rumaila field,
and allowing the IPC to engage in joint oil exploration with the INOC.
The Ba’ath party which was removed from the government soon after the
1963 coup, returned to power in a 1968 coup. The Ba’ath regime signed
a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union soon
after it nationalized the IPC in 1972. The Iraqi government turned to
Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals
for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company, which had been owned by
Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, Exxon, Mobil, and the French firm CFP. Iraq
was the first Gulf country to successfully nationalize its oil
industry during the early 1970s struggles of oil exporting countries
against the Western multinational corporations that had ruled the
industry. By shunning the western powers such as US and U.K
and developing a close relationship with the Soviet Union, Iraq
succeeded in depriving US and UK companies from having access to
lucrative oil resources in Iraq. Before the nationalization of oil
in Iraq, US and UK oil giants held “three quarter share of the Iraqi
petroleum company, including Iraq’s entire national reserves”.
Saddam Hussein, a strongman of the Ba’ath regime who formally took
over as President in 1979, gradually shifted the regime to a more pro-
Western policy. As Saddam Hussein later revealed, “the United States
and Iraq decided to re-establish diplomatic relations—broken off after
the 1967 war with Israel—just before Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980.”
Saddam’s decision to re-establish ties with U.S. was a calculated
measure and in response to such important events and factors as the
fall of the Shah in Iran, Khomeini’s expansionist ideas and
practices, and Iraq’s desperate need for advanced technology and
goods to implement its modernization policies.
Even though the USA and Saddam engaged in a strategic alliance
during the Iran –Iraq war, each sought different objectives in their
newly established cooperation. Saddam’s primary intention was to
modernize his country and strengthen Iraq’s position in the region by
replacing Iran as a proxy after the collapse of the Shah’s regime, a
task that neither Saudi Arabia nor any of the smaller Gulf States had
the capacity to perform. A victory in the war would have weakened the
regime in Tehran and would have equally given Saddam the needed
prestige and public boost in the Arab world to revive the pan-Arabist
ideology. Under this scenario, a victorious Saddam would have emerged
as the new Jamal Abdul Nasser of the Arab world. Saddam’s political
calculation not only had dire consequences for the US- friendly states
in the region, but was also a direct challenge to the Western
countries in so far as the access to cheap oil was concerned.
The culmination of Saddam’s political ambition was the
invasion of Kuwait that provided a golden opportunity for the
US to escalate its military presence in the gulf region which
eventually led to the first Gulf War. Subsequent to the expulsion
of Iraq from Kuwait, rival oil companies in France, Russia and
China were in an enhanced strategic position vis-a vis their giant
rivals in US and UK to conclude lucrative production sharing
agreements with the Iraqi government . During the 1980s and the
1990s, rival oil companies in Russia, France, China and Japan found
a ground to aggrandize their market capacity through acquiring a large
potential share of Iraq’s oil resources. To counter the economic
inroads of rival oil companies in Iraq, the US and UK employed
the sanction regime as a tool to frustrate these agreements and
thus protecting the future stakes of their own oil companies
which had been deprived from having access to Iraqi oil
resources.
It is now evident that the Bush administration had no credible
evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed any WMDs and/or was in
any way linked to the events of September 11, 2001. However, the
terrorist attacks on US soil provided the neo-cons in Washington with
the most favourable and a much needed pretext to implement the
“American grand strategy” through the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
Toppling Saddam’s government and Installing a U.S. client regime in
Baghdad would serve American interests in different ways: (1) provide
them with permanent military installations in the region; (2) give
American and British companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
and BP) a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time
in 30 years; (3) exclude possible rivals from access to the vast
Iraqi oil reserves and development projects in Iraq; (4) create
lucrative jobs for the oil service industry, including Vice President
Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, to rebuild and rehabilitate the
Iraqi oil industry which had ran down by years of war and sanctions;
and (5) if the puppet regime opens the way for the oil
multinationals to return, “it is possible that a broader wave of de-
nationalization could sweep through the world’s oil industry,
reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s.”
The neo-conservative administration of Bush moved quickly to
ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through
the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United
Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which
is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush
executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S.
interests in Iraqi oil. According to Bush Executive Order 13303, “any
attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other
judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,"
with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum
and petroleum products, and interests therein." In other words, if
Exxon Mobil or Chevron Texaco torches Iraqi oil, it will be immune
from legal proceedings in the United States.
Bush, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of the people
of Iraq and imposed a legal restriction on the political manageability
of even an emerging popular Iraqi government in future. Bush's order
unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of
U.S. corporations. In the short term, through the Development Fund and
the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance
U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order
13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of
Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places
oil companies above the rule of law.
Following the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition Authority abruptly
proceeded to implement the neo-conservative strategy of
privatizing Iraqi oil resources which engendered a climate of
resentment among Iraqi people. Popular indignation at attempted
privatization of Iraqi oil resources manifested itself in a wave of
demonstration in several Iraqi cities. On May 25, 2005, Iraqi trade
unionists and civil society activists will gather at the Oil Institute
of Basra for a two-day conference aimed at fighting the privatization
of Iraqi oil. The organizers of the conference, the General Union of
Oil Employees, is a union resolutely opposed to the Occupation, the
former regime and current plans to privatize Iraq's oil industry.
The independent Basra Oil Union has been a powerful force in Iraq's
largest industry, representing more than 23,000 workers in the oil
industry. It grew out of the South Oil Company (SOC) Union, and now
combines ten trade union councils in nine Iraqi oil companies in
Basra, Amara and Nassiriyah. The union has organized several
demonstrations and strikes since the beginning of the occupation,
putting pressure on the Governing Council (GC) to better the working
conditions and halt privatization efforts. According to one of the
organizers:
The opinion of all [Iraqi] oil workers is that they are against
privatization. We see privatization as economic colonialism. The
authorities are saying that privatization will develop our sector and
be useful. But we do not see it as development at all; we view any
plan to privatize the oil sector as a big disaster. Sovereignty over
its oil reserves is key to Iraq’s future development. Oil must stay in
the hands of Iraqis, because oil is the only national resource that we
have which is of great value, and our economy depends on it. The
struggle over the control and ownership of Iraq’s oil continues.
With growing working class militancy against privatization of
oil industry and the fear that privatization would galvanize
insurgency, the Coalition Authority put the privatization on hold.
Oil industry is now a sector that has so far been excluded from the
mass privatizations imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in
2003 and 2004. An alternative to privatization crusaded by the neo-
conservative wing of the Bush administration but resented by
some elements within oil industry in the US and UK that is being
considered by the occupying powers is to cement the
installation of a complaisant government in Iraq which would
provide a preferential treatment to US and UK oil companies.
By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region through
establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq, the US
would be in a position to not only check the maneuverability of
OPEC but also to influence conduct of other powers around the
globe. The accomplishment of all these strategic goals contemplated
by the US necessitates enthroning a powerful pro-US government in
Baghdad which would in turn require a prolonged American military
presence on Iraqi soil. But the continuation of military occupation
of Iraq by the US provides a legitimate ground for Iraqi resistance.
This is the most perplexing dilemma that the United States has
confronted in Iraq.
http://iranreview.com/Archives/US%20invasion.htm
George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
war. Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bush’s ascendancy
to power. By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region
through establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq,
the US would be in a position to not only check the
maneuverability of OPEC but also to influence conduct of other
powers around the globe as the US military dismantled Iraq's
nationalized oil industry.
Israel also benefited from the American invasion of Iraq.
Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa
The Observer
By Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he
expected an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the
near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.
"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.
"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."
Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.
Shalom:
"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to
Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential
future government figures in Baghdad.The plan envisages the
reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the
British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's
northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.
In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to
revive the pipeline to Haifa (Kirkuk oil fields were said to contain
perhaps 40% of Iraq's oil), and partly to bring oil deals to his
personal friends, such as Ray L. Hunt. Small American oil companies
like Hunt Oil will extract Kurdish oil as soon as and if Mosul and
Kirkuk are broken off from Iraq (17 November 2007). Mosul is the first
stop for Kirkuk oil
Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US guaranteed all
Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This MoU is quietly
renewed every five years. It commits US taxpayers to maintain a
strategic US reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002
dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from
restrictions on oil exports from the US. Moreover, the US government
agreed to divert oil from the US, even in case of oil shortages in the
US. The US government also guaranteed delivery of oil in US tankers if
commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the
US to Israel.
SEE
Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding
(September 1, 1975)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
Israel can wrench lot of oil from the region if the pipeline were used
again and Kurds were willing to sell the oil. It would also make Kurds
dependent on Israelis for oil revenues and thus give a greater
leverage to Israelis over Kurds of the region...
"Who owns the oil owns the world." In 2009, Gaddafi proposed
nationalizing Libya's oil reserve. ... Nationalization of a country's
resources is often a cause for invasion. .Gaddafi lost his oil and his
life.
In the early 1970s, Saddam nationalized oil and other industries and
through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses
of government as oil money helped Iraq's economy to grow at a rapid
pace. Nationalizing the oil upset British and American oil company
executives and in March 2003, a coalition of countries led by the U.S.
and U.K. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, after U.S. President George W.
Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair falsly accused him of
possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda.
SEE:
The US invasion of Iraq: Oil, the Mother of all Factors?
August 2005
By: K. Hooshiyar & S. Karimi
Even though the prolonged contemplation of the United States on
consolidating its hold over oil resources in Iraq was not
incorporated into officially declared reasons for the invasion of
Iraq , oil factor was nonetheless one of the primary motives
lurking beneath the Bush administration’s determination to topple
Saddam from power. Long before the attack on the twin towers in
New York that provided an auspicious ground for the Bush
administration to sharpen its sword, removing Saddam from the seat
of power was a part and parcel of a protracted deliberation within
the US administration to redesign the international order in
American image. A blueprint for U.S. global domination, entitled
Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a
New Century, which was written in September 2000 by the neo-
conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
called for the creation of a ''global Pax Americana.'' The PNAC
document supports a ''blueprint for maintaining global US pre-
eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests''. This ''American grand strategy'' must be advanced ''as
far into the future as possible'', the report says. It also calls for
the US to ''fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
theatre wars'' as a ''core mission''.
While Afghanistan was the first victim of the new “American grand
strategy” for the world, Iraq was the main target even prior to George
Bush’s ascendancy to power. As PNAC document reveals, George Bush and
his cabinet had planned to topple Saddam’s regime even before he took
power in January 2001. A report entitled Strategic Energy Policy:
Challenges For The 21st Century, commissioned before 9/11 by Vice-
president Dick Cheney on ''energy security'' clearly identifies Iraq
as a major “de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to
international markets from the Middle East.” The report furthermore
concludes that “Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to
threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to
manipulate oil markets.” It was based on such reports that President
Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that “ Iraq remains a
destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the
US ''military intervention'' is necessary.
Oil definitely plays a major role in the “American grand design” for
the world, more so for the Middle East. The Middle East—and
specifically the Persian Gulf region which contains almost 30 percent
of global oil production. But it has about 67 percent of the planet’s
known reserves, and is therefore the only region able to satisfy any
substantial rise in world oil demand—an increase that the Bush
administration’s energy policy documents say is inevitable. The
access to oil and more so the continuous and guaranteed access to
cheap oil is vital for the economies of advanced capitalist countries
requires securing political control of the area. If the United States
succeeds in acquiring an upper hand to play a permanent role in the
Persian Gulf regional security, an objective that the US has been
seeking since World War II, it will definitely consolidate its global
economic, military, and political supremacy for decades to come.
With its known oil reserves standing at 112 billion barrels, second
only to Saudi Arabia, Iraq occupies a very important strategic
position in the Gulf region. Since the discovery of oil, Iraq has
been a scene of imperialist rivalries for the dominance and control of
its vast oil wealth. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
Britain directly ruled Egypt, Sudan, and the Persian Gulf, while
France was the dominant power in Lebanon and Syria. Iran was divided
between British and Russian spheres of influence. After World War I,
Britain also got the mandate for Palestine and Iraq. With Germany’s
defeat in the war, its stake in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which
had the concession for the whole of Iraq, fell into Britain’s table.
Britain’s complete dominance, though it had the largest empire among
the imperialist powers, was not unchallenged. A declining British
empire, unable to compete with other industrial economies, desperately
tried to use its exclusive grip over its colonies to strengthen its
economy. The United States as the emerging new superpower and the
leading capitalist power, however, sought an “open door” to exploit
the possessions of the waning colonizing powers.
By 1928, two American oil companies, Jersey Standard and Socony
(known today as the merged Exxon and Mobil) with active backing of the
US government, got a 23.75 % share in the Turkish Petroleum Company,
later renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). The rest of the
shares were held by the British, French, and Royal Dutch-Shell oil
companies. Britain continued its direct and indirect rule over Iraq
in the turbulent period 1925–1958. During this period, growing
opposition to colonial rule forced Britain to grant Iraq
“independence” in 1932. But Britain managed to continue its colonial
rule indirectly and through installed puppet kings and regimes.
With the overthrow of national government of Dr. Muhammad Mosaddeq in
Iran in 1953, who nationalized the British Petroleum in 1951, through
a CIA-led coup, the United States signalled its emergence as the new
imperial force in the region, gradually replacing the British
predominance. The main task of this new gendarme and ruler of the
Gulf region was to ensure capitalist expansion, back the interests of
U.S. multinational corporations, and suppress any agitation against
imperialism and its client states. Since then, the United States has
steadily increased its influence in keeping the Gulf region in its
geopolitical orbit—and maintaining its claim on the region’s most
valuable resources-oil. The increasing American investments to advance
its interests have included direct and indirect forms of intervention,
massive arms transfers to allies, and the acquisition of military
bases.
After Iran, Iraq was the second country that became the target of
direct US imperial policy, when its pro-Western, British-installed
monarchy was overthrown in 1953 - the first puppet regime to be
overthrown in an oil-producing country. In July 1958 an army faction
led by Abdul Karim Qasim seized power in Iraq, executed the king and
declared Iraq a republic. Fearing that Iraq might turn communist under
the new military regime and worrying about its oil interests, the
United States delivered an ultimatum to the new regime by threatening
to invade Iraq. In order to corroborate the credibility of its
threat, U.S. stationed its troops in Jordan and Lebanon and did not
pull them backed until it got assurances from the new regime in
Baghdad that U.S. oil interests will not be jeopardized.
The anti-colonial sentiments of the Iraqi people and their high
expectations from the new government, however, posed a growing danger
to U.S. interests in Iraq. Under rising tide of public pressure,
Qasim’s regime undertook several anti-imperialist measures contrary to
its previous assurances. The most important of which were: limiting
IPC’s concession area by issuing “law 80” in 1961 and the subsequent
formation of a new Iraqi owned oil company in 1963; withdrawing Iraq
from the Baghdad Pact; ordering British forces out of Iraq; signing an
economic and technical aid deal with the Soviet Union; and cancelling
the American aid program. These measures proved detrimental not only
to the US interests in Iraq, but also to his own regime.
In a temporary alliance of convenience with the Ba’ath (Renaissance)
Party, the United States actively backed a successful coup against
Qasim’s regime. The coup was staged only four days after the
announcement of the formation of the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC)
to develop the non-concession lands in 1963. CIA agents provided
critical logistical information to the coup plotters and supplied
lists with the names of hundreds of suspected Communists to be
eliminated. The first act of the new government was the granting of
more concession areas to the IPC, including the rich Rumaila field,
and allowing the IPC to engage in joint oil exploration with the INOC.
The Ba’ath party which was removed from the government soon after the
1963 coup, returned to power in a 1968 coup. The Ba’ath regime signed
a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union soon
after it nationalized the IPC in 1972. The Iraqi government turned to
Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals
for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company, which had been owned by
Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, Exxon, Mobil, and the French firm CFP. Iraq
was the first Gulf country to successfully nationalize its oil
industry during the early 1970s struggles of oil exporting countries
against the Western multinational corporations that had ruled the
industry. By shunning the western powers such as US and U.K
and developing a close relationship with the Soviet Union, Iraq
succeeded in depriving US and UK companies from having access to
lucrative oil resources in Iraq. Before the nationalization of oil
in Iraq, US and UK oil giants held “three quarter share of the Iraqi
petroleum company, including Iraq’s entire national reserves”.
Saddam Hussein, a strongman of the Ba’ath regime who formally took
over as President in 1979, gradually shifted the regime to a more pro-
Western policy. As Saddam Hussein later revealed, “the United States
and Iraq decided to re-establish diplomatic relations—broken off after
the 1967 war with Israel—just before Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980.”
Saddam’s decision to re-establish ties with U.S. was a calculated
measure and in response to such important events and factors as the
fall of the Shah in Iran, Khomeini’s expansionist ideas and
practices, and Iraq’s desperate need for advanced technology and
goods to implement its modernization policies.
Even though the USA and Saddam engaged in a strategic alliance
during the Iran –Iraq war, each sought different objectives in their
newly established cooperation. Saddam’s primary intention was to
modernize his country and strengthen Iraq’s position in the region by
replacing Iran as a proxy after the collapse of the Shah’s regime, a
task that neither Saudi Arabia nor any of the smaller Gulf States had
the capacity to perform. A victory in the war would have weakened the
regime in Tehran and would have equally given Saddam the needed
prestige and public boost in the Arab world to revive the pan-Arabist
ideology. Under this scenario, a victorious Saddam would have emerged
as the new Jamal Abdul Nasser of the Arab world. Saddam’s political
calculation not only had dire consequences for the US- friendly states
in the region, but was also a direct challenge to the Western
countries in so far as the access to cheap oil was concerned.
The culmination of Saddam’s political ambition was the
invasion of Kuwait that provided a golden opportunity for the
US to escalate its military presence in the gulf region which
eventually led to the first Gulf War. Subsequent to the expulsion
of Iraq from Kuwait, rival oil companies in France, Russia and
China were in an enhanced strategic position vis-a vis their giant
rivals in US and UK to conclude lucrative production sharing
agreements with the Iraqi government . During the 1980s and the
1990s, rival oil companies in Russia, France, China and Japan found
a ground to aggrandize their market capacity through acquiring a large
potential share of Iraq’s oil resources. To counter the economic
inroads of rival oil companies in Iraq, the US and UK employed
the sanction regime as a tool to frustrate these agreements and
thus protecting the future stakes of their own oil companies
which had been deprived from having access to Iraqi oil
resources.
It is now evident that the Bush administration had no credible
evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed any WMDs and/or was in
any way linked to the events of September 11, 2001. However, the
terrorist attacks on US soil provided the neo-cons in Washington with
the most favourable and a much needed pretext to implement the
“American grand strategy” through the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
Toppling Saddam’s government and Installing a U.S. client regime in
Baghdad would serve American interests in different ways: (1) provide
them with permanent military installations in the region; (2) give
American and British companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
and BP) a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time
in 30 years; (3) exclude possible rivals from access to the vast
Iraqi oil reserves and development projects in Iraq; (4) create
lucrative jobs for the oil service industry, including Vice President
Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, to rebuild and rehabilitate the
Iraqi oil industry which had ran down by years of war and sanctions;
and (5) if the puppet regime opens the way for the oil
multinationals to return, “it is possible that a broader wave of de-
nationalization could sweep through the world’s oil industry,
reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s.”
The neo-conservative administration of Bush moved quickly to
ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through
the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United
Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which
is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush
executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S.
interests in Iraqi oil. According to Bush Executive Order 13303, “any
attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other
judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,"
with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum
and petroleum products, and interests therein." In other words, if
Exxon Mobil or Chevron Texaco torches Iraqi oil, it will be immune
from legal proceedings in the United States.
Bush, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of the people
of Iraq and imposed a legal restriction on the political manageability
of even an emerging popular Iraqi government in future. Bush's order
unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of
U.S. corporations. In the short term, through the Development Fund and
the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance
U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order
13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of
Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places
oil companies above the rule of law.
Following the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition Authority abruptly
proceeded to implement the neo-conservative strategy of
privatizing Iraqi oil resources which engendered a climate of
resentment among Iraqi people. Popular indignation at attempted
privatization of Iraqi oil resources manifested itself in a wave of
demonstration in several Iraqi cities. On May 25, 2005, Iraqi trade
unionists and civil society activists will gather at the Oil Institute
of Basra for a two-day conference aimed at fighting the privatization
of Iraqi oil. The organizers of the conference, the General Union of
Oil Employees, is a union resolutely opposed to the Occupation, the
former regime and current plans to privatize Iraq's oil industry.
The independent Basra Oil Union has been a powerful force in Iraq's
largest industry, representing more than 23,000 workers in the oil
industry. It grew out of the South Oil Company (SOC) Union, and now
combines ten trade union councils in nine Iraqi oil companies in
Basra, Amara and Nassiriyah. The union has organized several
demonstrations and strikes since the beginning of the occupation,
putting pressure on the Governing Council (GC) to better the working
conditions and halt privatization efforts. According to one of the
organizers:
The opinion of all [Iraqi] oil workers is that they are against
privatization. We see privatization as economic colonialism. The
authorities are saying that privatization will develop our sector and
be useful. But we do not see it as development at all; we view any
plan to privatize the oil sector as a big disaster. Sovereignty over
its oil reserves is key to Iraq’s future development. Oil must stay in
the hands of Iraqis, because oil is the only national resource that we
have which is of great value, and our economy depends on it. The
struggle over the control and ownership of Iraq’s oil continues.
With growing working class militancy against privatization of
oil industry and the fear that privatization would galvanize
insurgency, the Coalition Authority put the privatization on hold.
Oil industry is now a sector that has so far been excluded from the
mass privatizations imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in
2003 and 2004. An alternative to privatization crusaded by the neo-
conservative wing of the Bush administration but resented by
some elements within oil industry in the US and UK that is being
considered by the occupying powers is to cement the
installation of a complaisant government in Iraq which would
provide a preferential treatment to US and UK oil companies.
By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region through
establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq, the US
would be in a position to not only check the maneuverability of
OPEC but also to influence conduct of other powers around the
globe. The accomplishment of all these strategic goals contemplated
by the US necessitates enthroning a powerful pro-US government in
Baghdad which would in turn require a prolonged American military
presence on Iraqi soil. But the continuation of military occupation
of Iraq by the US provides a legitimate ground for Iraqi resistance.
This is the most perplexing dilemma that the United States has
confronted in Iraq.
http://iranreview.com/Archives/US%20invasion.htm
Government Shill #2
May 26, 2012, 8:32:19 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 16:30:15 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote:
>Iraq is seen as an oil war
>
>George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
>war. Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bush’s ascendancy
>to power. By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region
>through establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq,
>the US would be in a position to not only check the
>maneuverability of OPEC but also to influence conduct of other
>powers around the globe as the US military dismantled Iraq's
>nationalized oil industry.
<snip>
>Iraq is seen as an oil war
>
>George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
>war. Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bush’s ascendancy
>to power. By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region
>through establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq,
>the US would be in a position to not only check the
>maneuverability of OPEC but also to influence conduct of other
>powers around the globe as the US military dismantled Iraq's
>nationalized oil industry.
September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011
"The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (2,324
thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,465 thousand barrels per day), Mexico
(1,099 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (759 thousand barrels per day) and
Nigeria (529 thousand barrels per day)."
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Shill #2
--
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Me
Mr. K
May 26, 2012, 9:52:34 PM5/26/12
to
In article
<b2dae238-37db-472d...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> lurking beneath the Bush administrationąs determination to topple
> his cabinet had planned to topple Saddamąs regime even before he took
> Britainąs complete dominance, though it had the largest empire among
> 1963 coup, returned to power in a 1968 coup. The Baąath regime signed
> petroleum company, including Iraqąs entire national reserves˛.
>
> Saddam Hussein, a strongman of the Baąath regime who formally took
> Saddamąs decision to re-establish ties with U.S. was a calculated
> practices, and Iraqąs desperate need for advanced technology and
> modernize his country and strengthen Iraqąs position in the region by
> replacing Iran as a proxy after the collapse of the Shahąs regime, a
> Toppling Saddamąs government and Installing a U.S. client regime in
> nationalization could sweep through the worldąs oil industry,
> its oil reserves is key to Iraqąs future development. Oil must stay in
to do the dirty work. they are the "Economic Hit-Men"
and the U.S. taxpayers are the suckers.
--
Karma, What a concept!
<b2dae238-37db-472d...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Raymond <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote:
> Iraq is seen as an oil war
>
> George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
> war. Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bushąs ascendancy
> Iraq is seen as an oil war
>
> George W. Bush's regime-changing war in Iraq is widely seen as an oil
> Saddam from power. Long before the attack on the twin towers in
> New York that provided an auspicious ground for the Bush
> administration to sharpen its sword, removing Saddam from the seat
> of power was a part and parcel of a protracted deliberation within
> the US administration to redesign the international order in
> American image. A blueprint for U.S. global domination, entitled
> Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a
> New Century, which was written in September 2000 by the neo-
> conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
> called for the creation of a ''global Pax Americana.'' The PNAC
> document supports a ''blueprint for maintaining global US pre-
> eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the
> international security order in line with American principles and
> interests''. This ''American grand strategy'' must be advanced ''as
> far into the future as possible'', the report says. It also calls for
> the US to ''fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
> theatre wars'' as a ''core mission''.
>
> While Afghanistan was the first victim of the new łAmerican grand
> New York that provided an auspicious ground for the Bush
> administration to sharpen its sword, removing Saddam from the seat
> of power was a part and parcel of a protracted deliberation within
> the US administration to redesign the international order in
> American image. A blueprint for U.S. global domination, entitled
> Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a
> New Century, which was written in September 2000 by the neo-
> conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
> called for the creation of a ''global Pax Americana.'' The PNAC
> document supports a ''blueprint for maintaining global US pre-
> eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the
> international security order in line with American principles and
> interests''. This ''American grand strategy'' must be advanced ''as
> far into the future as possible'', the report says. It also calls for
> the US to ''fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major
> theatre wars'' as a ''core mission''.
>
> strategy˛ for the world, Iraq was the main target even prior to George
> Bushąs ascendancy to power. As PNAC document reveals, George Bush and
> his cabinet had planned to topple Saddamąs regime even before he took
> power in January 2001. A report entitled Strategic Energy Policy:
> Challenges For The 21st Century, commissioned before 9/11 by Vice-
> president Dick Cheney on ''energy security'' clearly identifies Iraq
> as a major łde-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to
> Challenges For The 21st Century, commissioned before 9/11 by Vice-
> president Dick Cheney on ''energy security'' clearly identifies Iraq
> international markets from the Middle East.˛ The report furthermore
> concludes that łSaddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to
> threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to
> manipulate oil markets.˛ It was based on such reports that President
> Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that ł Iraq remains a
> manipulate oil markets.˛ It was based on such reports that President
> destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets
> from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the
> US ''military intervention'' is necessary.
>
> Oil definitely plays a major role in the łAmerican grand design˛ for
> from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the
> US ''military intervention'' is necessary.
>
> the world, more so for the Middle East. The Middle East‹and
> specifically the Persian Gulf region which contains almost 30 percent
> of global oil production. But it has about 67 percent of the planetąs
> specifically the Persian Gulf region which contains almost 30 percent
> known reserves, and is therefore the only region able to satisfy any
> substantial rise in world oil demand‹an increase that the Bush
> administrationąs energy policy documents say is inevitable. The
> substantial rise in world oil demand‹an increase that the Bush
> access to oil and more so the continuous and guaranteed access to
> cheap oil is vital for the economies of advanced capitalist countries
> requires securing political control of the area. If the United States
> succeeds in acquiring an upper hand to play a permanent role in the
> Persian Gulf regional security, an objective that the US has been
> seeking since World War II, it will definitely consolidate its global
> economic, military, and political supremacy for decades to come.
>
> With its known oil reserves standing at 112 billion barrels, second
> only to Saudi Arabia, Iraq occupies a very important strategic
> position in the Gulf region. Since the discovery of oil, Iraq has
> been a scene of imperialist rivalries for the dominance and control of
> its vast oil wealth. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
> Britain directly ruled Egypt, Sudan, and the Persian Gulf, while
> France was the dominant power in Lebanon and Syria. Iran was divided
> between British and Russian spheres of influence. After World War I,
> Britain also got the mandate for Palestine and Iraq. With Germanyąs
> cheap oil is vital for the economies of advanced capitalist countries
> requires securing political control of the area. If the United States
> succeeds in acquiring an upper hand to play a permanent role in the
> Persian Gulf regional security, an objective that the US has been
> seeking since World War II, it will definitely consolidate its global
> economic, military, and political supremacy for decades to come.
>
> With its known oil reserves standing at 112 billion barrels, second
> only to Saudi Arabia, Iraq occupies a very important strategic
> position in the Gulf region. Since the discovery of oil, Iraq has
> been a scene of imperialist rivalries for the dominance and control of
> its vast oil wealth. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
> Britain directly ruled Egypt, Sudan, and the Persian Gulf, while
> France was the dominant power in Lebanon and Syria. Iran was divided
> between British and Russian spheres of influence. After World War I,
> defeat in the war, its stake in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which
> had the concession for the whole of Iraq, fell into Britainąs table.
> Britainąs complete dominance, though it had the largest empire among
> the imperialist powers, was not unchallenged. A declining British
> empire, unable to compete with other industrial economies, desperately
> tried to use its exclusive grip over its colonies to strengthen its
> economy. The United States as the emerging new superpower and the
> leading capitalist power, however, sought an łopen door˛ to exploit
> empire, unable to compete with other industrial economies, desperately
> tried to use its exclusive grip over its colonies to strengthen its
> economy. The United States as the emerging new superpower and the
> the possessions of the waning colonizing powers.
>
> By 1928, two American oil companies, Jersey Standard and Socony
> (known today as the merged Exxon and Mobil) with active backing of the
> US government, got a 23.75 % share in the Turkish Petroleum Company,
> later renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). The rest of the
> shares were held by the British, French, and Royal Dutch-Shell oil
> companies. Britain continued its direct and indirect rule over Iraq
> in the turbulent period 19251958. During this period, growing
> opposition to colonial rule forced Britain to grant Iraq
> łindependence˛ in 1932. But Britain managed to continue its colonial
>
> By 1928, two American oil companies, Jersey Standard and Socony
> (known today as the merged Exxon and Mobil) with active backing of the
> US government, got a 23.75 % share in the Turkish Petroleum Company,
> later renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). The rest of the
> shares were held by the British, French, and Royal Dutch-Shell oil
> companies. Britain continued its direct and indirect rule over Iraq
> in the turbulent period 19251958. During this period, growing
> opposition to colonial rule forced Britain to grant Iraq
> rule indirectly and through installed puppet kings and regimes.
>
> With the overthrow of national government of Dr. Muhammad Mosaddeq in
> Iran in 1953, who nationalized the British Petroleum in 1951, through
> a CIA-led coup, the United States signalled its emergence as the new
> imperial force in the region, gradually replacing the British
> predominance. The main task of this new gendarme and ruler of the
> Gulf region was to ensure capitalist expansion, back the interests of
> U.S. multinational corporations, and suppress any agitation against
> imperialism and its client states. Since then, the United States has
> steadily increased its influence in keeping the Gulf region in its
> geopolitical orbit‹and maintaining its claim on the regionąs most
>
> With the overthrow of national government of Dr. Muhammad Mosaddeq in
> Iran in 1953, who nationalized the British Petroleum in 1951, through
> a CIA-led coup, the United States signalled its emergence as the new
> imperial force in the region, gradually replacing the British
> predominance. The main task of this new gendarme and ruler of the
> Gulf region was to ensure capitalist expansion, back the interests of
> U.S. multinational corporations, and suppress any agitation against
> imperialism and its client states. Since then, the United States has
> steadily increased its influence in keeping the Gulf region in its
> valuable resources-oil. The increasing American investments to advance
> its interests have included direct and indirect forms of intervention,
> massive arms transfers to allies, and the acquisition of military
> bases.
>
> After Iran, Iraq was the second country that became the target of
> direct US imperial policy, when its pro-Western, British-installed
> monarchy was overthrown in 1953 - the first puppet regime to be
> overthrown in an oil-producing country. In July 1958 an army faction
> led by Abdul Karim Qasim seized power in Iraq, executed the king and
> declared Iraq a republic. Fearing that Iraq might turn communist under
> the new military regime and worrying about its oil interests, the
> United States delivered an ultimatum to the new regime by threatening
> to invade Iraq. In order to corroborate the credibility of its
> threat, U.S. stationed its troops in Jordan and Lebanon and did not
> pull them backed until it got assurances from the new regime in
> Baghdad that U.S. oil interests will not be jeopardized.
>
> The anti-colonial sentiments of the Iraqi people and their high
> expectations from the new government, however, posed a growing danger
> to U.S. interests in Iraq. Under rising tide of public pressure,
> Qasimąs regime undertook several anti-imperialist measures contrary to
> its interests have included direct and indirect forms of intervention,
> massive arms transfers to allies, and the acquisition of military
> bases.
>
> After Iran, Iraq was the second country that became the target of
> direct US imperial policy, when its pro-Western, British-installed
> monarchy was overthrown in 1953 - the first puppet regime to be
> overthrown in an oil-producing country. In July 1958 an army faction
> led by Abdul Karim Qasim seized power in Iraq, executed the king and
> declared Iraq a republic. Fearing that Iraq might turn communist under
> the new military regime and worrying about its oil interests, the
> United States delivered an ultimatum to the new regime by threatening
> to invade Iraq. In order to corroborate the credibility of its
> threat, U.S. stationed its troops in Jordan and Lebanon and did not
> pull them backed until it got assurances from the new regime in
> Baghdad that U.S. oil interests will not be jeopardized.
>
> The anti-colonial sentiments of the Iraqi people and their high
> expectations from the new government, however, posed a growing danger
> to U.S. interests in Iraq. Under rising tide of public pressure,
> its previous assurances. The most important of which were: limiting
> IPCąs concession area by issuing łlaw 80˛ in 1961 and the subsequent
> formation of a new Iraqi owned oil company in 1963; withdrawing Iraq
> from the Baghdad Pact; ordering British forces out of Iraq; signing an
> economic and technical aid deal with the Soviet Union; and cancelling
> the American aid program. These measures proved detrimental not only
> to the US interests in Iraq, but also to his own regime.
>
> In a temporary alliance of convenience with the Baąath (Renaissance)
> from the Baghdad Pact; ordering British forces out of Iraq; signing an
> economic and technical aid deal with the Soviet Union; and cancelling
> the American aid program. These measures proved detrimental not only
> to the US interests in Iraq, but also to his own regime.
>
> Party, the United States actively backed a successful coup against
> Qasimąs regime. The coup was staged only four days after the
> announcement of the formation of the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC)
> to develop the non-concession lands in 1963. CIA agents provided
> critical logistical information to the coup plotters and supplied
> lists with the names of hundreds of suspected Communists to be
> eliminated. The first act of the new government was the granting of
> more concession areas to the IPC, including the rich Rumaila field,
> and allowing the IPC to engage in joint oil exploration with the INOC.
>
> The Baąath party which was removed from the government soon after the
> to develop the non-concession lands in 1963. CIA agents provided
> critical logistical information to the coup plotters and supplied
> lists with the names of hundreds of suspected Communists to be
> eliminated. The first act of the new government was the granting of
> more concession areas to the IPC, including the rich Rumaila field,
> and allowing the IPC to engage in joint oil exploration with the INOC.
>
> 1963 coup, returned to power in a 1968 coup. The Baąath regime signed
> a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union soon
> after it nationalized the IPC in 1972. The Iraqi government turned to
> Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals
> for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company, which had been owned by
> Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, Exxon, Mobil, and the French firm CFP. Iraq
> was the first Gulf country to successfully nationalize its oil
> industry during the early 1970s struggles of oil exporting countries
> against the Western multinational corporations that had ruled the
> industry. By shunning the western powers such as US and U.K
> and developing a close relationship with the Soviet Union, Iraq
> succeeded in depriving US and UK companies from having access to
> lucrative oil resources in Iraq. Before the nationalization of oil
> in Iraq, US and UK oil giants held łthree quarter share of the Iraqi
> after it nationalized the IPC in 1972. The Iraqi government turned to
> Moscow both for weapons and for help in deterring any U.S. reprisals
> for nationalizing the Iraq Petroleum Company, which had been owned by
> Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, Exxon, Mobil, and the French firm CFP. Iraq
> was the first Gulf country to successfully nationalize its oil
> industry during the early 1970s struggles of oil exporting countries
> against the Western multinational corporations that had ruled the
> industry. By shunning the western powers such as US and U.K
> and developing a close relationship with the Soviet Union, Iraq
> succeeded in depriving US and UK companies from having access to
> lucrative oil resources in Iraq. Before the nationalization of oil
> petroleum company, including Iraqąs entire national reserves˛.
>
> Saddam Hussein, a strongman of the Baąath regime who formally took
> over as President in 1979, gradually shifted the regime to a more pro-
> Western policy. As Saddam Hussein later revealed, łthe United States
> and Iraq decided to re-establish diplomatic relations‹broken off after
> the 1967 war with Israel‹just before Iraqąs invasion of Iran in 1980.˛
> Saddamąs decision to re-establish ties with U.S. was a calculated
> measure and in response to such important events and factors as the
> fall of the Shah in Iran, Khomeiniąs expansionist ideas and
> practices, and Iraqąs desperate need for advanced technology and
> goods to implement its modernization policies.
>
> Even though the USA and Saddam engaged in a strategic alliance
> during the Iran Iraq war, each sought different objectives in their
> newly established cooperation. Saddamąs primary intention was to
>
> Even though the USA and Saddam engaged in a strategic alliance
> during the Iran Iraq war, each sought different objectives in their
> modernize his country and strengthen Iraqąs position in the region by
> replacing Iran as a proxy after the collapse of the Shahąs regime, a
> task that neither Saudi Arabia nor any of the smaller Gulf States had
> the capacity to perform. A victory in the war would have weakened the
> regime in Tehran and would have equally given Saddam the needed
> prestige and public boost in the Arab world to revive the pan-Arabist
> ideology. Under this scenario, a victorious Saddam would have emerged
> as the new Jamal Abdul Nasser of the Arab world. Saddamąs political
> the capacity to perform. A victory in the war would have weakened the
> regime in Tehran and would have equally given Saddam the needed
> prestige and public boost in the Arab world to revive the pan-Arabist
> ideology. Under this scenario, a victorious Saddam would have emerged
> calculation not only had dire consequences for the US- friendly states
> in the region, but was also a direct challenge to the Western
> countries in so far as the access to cheap oil was concerned.
>
> The culmination of Saddamąs political ambition was the
> in the region, but was also a direct challenge to the Western
> countries in so far as the access to cheap oil was concerned.
>
> invasion of Kuwait that provided a golden opportunity for the
> US to escalate its military presence in the gulf region which
> eventually led to the first Gulf War. Subsequent to the expulsion
> of Iraq from Kuwait, rival oil companies in France, Russia and
> China were in an enhanced strategic position vis-a vis their giant
> rivals in US and UK to conclude lucrative production sharing
> agreements with the Iraqi government . During the 1980s and the
> 1990s, rival oil companies in Russia, France, China and Japan found
> a ground to aggrandize their market capacity through acquiring a large
> potential share of Iraqąs oil resources. To counter the economic
> US to escalate its military presence in the gulf region which
> eventually led to the first Gulf War. Subsequent to the expulsion
> of Iraq from Kuwait, rival oil companies in France, Russia and
> China were in an enhanced strategic position vis-a vis their giant
> rivals in US and UK to conclude lucrative production sharing
> agreements with the Iraqi government . During the 1980s and the
> 1990s, rival oil companies in Russia, France, China and Japan found
> a ground to aggrandize their market capacity through acquiring a large
> inroads of rival oil companies in Iraq, the US and UK employed
> the sanction regime as a tool to frustrate these agreements and
> thus protecting the future stakes of their own oil companies
> which had been deprived from having access to Iraqi oil
> resources.
>
> It is now evident that the Bush administration had no credible
> evidence that Saddam Husseinąs regime possessed any WMDs and/or was in
> the sanction regime as a tool to frustrate these agreements and
> thus protecting the future stakes of their own oil companies
> which had been deprived from having access to Iraqi oil
> resources.
>
> It is now evident that the Bush administration had no credible
> any way linked to the events of September 11, 2001. However, the
> terrorist attacks on US soil provided the neo-cons in Washington with
> the most favourable and a much needed pretext to implement the
> łAmerican grand strategy˛ through the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
> terrorist attacks on US soil provided the neo-cons in Washington with
> the most favourable and a much needed pretext to implement the
> Toppling Saddamąs government and Installing a U.S. client regime in
> Baghdad would serve American interests in different ways: (1) provide
> them with permanent military installations in the region; (2) give
> American and British companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and BP) a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time
> in 30 years; (3) exclude possible rivals from access to the vast
> Iraqi oil reserves and development projects in Iraq; (4) create
> lucrative jobs for the oil service industry, including Vice President
> Cheneyąs former company, Halliburton, to rebuild and rehabilitate the
> them with permanent military installations in the region; (2) give
> American and British companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and BP) a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first time
> in 30 years; (3) exclude possible rivals from access to the vast
> Iraqi oil reserves and development projects in Iraq; (4) create
> lucrative jobs for the oil service industry, including Vice President
> Iraqi oil industry which had ran down by years of war and sanctions;
> and (5) if the puppet regime opens the way for the oil
> multinationals to return, łit is possible that a broader wave of de-
> and (5) if the puppet regime opens the way for the oil
> nationalization could sweep through the worldąs oil industry,
> reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s.˛
>
> The neo-conservative administration of Bush moved quickly to
> ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through
> the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United
> Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which
> is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank
> and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush
> executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S.
> interests in Iraqi oil. According to Bush Executive Order 13303, łany
>
> The neo-conservative administration of Bush moved quickly to
> ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through
> the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United
> Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which
> is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank
> and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush
> executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S.
> the hands of Iraqis, because oil is the only national resource that we
> have which is of great value, and our economy depends on it. The
> struggle over the control and ownership of Iraqąs oil continues.
> have which is of great value, and our economy depends on it. The
>
> With growing working class militancy against privatization of
> oil industry and the fear that privatization would galvanize
> insurgency, the Coalition Authority put the privatization on hold.
> Oil industry is now a sector that has so far been excluded from the
> mass privatizations imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in
> 2003 and 2004. An alternative to privatization crusaded by the neo-
> conservative wing of the Bush administration but resented by
> some elements within oil industry in the US and UK that is being
> considered by the occupying powers is to cement the
> installation of a complaisant government in Iraq which would
> provide a preferential treatment to US and UK oil companies.
>
> By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region through
> establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq, the US
> would be in a position to not only check the maneuverability of
> OPEC but also to influence conduct of other powers around the
> globe. The accomplishment of all these strategic goals contemplated
> by the US necessitates enthroning a powerful pro-US government in
> Baghdad which would in turn require a prolonged American military
> presence on Iraqi soil. But the continuation of military occupation
> of Iraq by the US provides a legitimate ground for Iraqi resistance.
> This is the most perplexing dilemma that the United States has
> confronted in Iraq.
>
> http://iranreview.com/Archives/US%20invasion.htm
BTW. it's not the U.S. , tis the" Men behind the Curtain" using the U.$.
> With growing working class militancy against privatization of
> oil industry and the fear that privatization would galvanize
> insurgency, the Coalition Authority put the privatization on hold.
> Oil industry is now a sector that has so far been excluded from the
> mass privatizations imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in
> 2003 and 2004. An alternative to privatization crusaded by the neo-
> conservative wing of the Bush administration but resented by
> some elements within oil industry in the US and UK that is being
> considered by the occupying powers is to cement the
> installation of a complaisant government in Iraq which would
> provide a preferential treatment to US and UK oil companies.
>
> By entrenching its strategic position in the Gulf region through
> establishing a friendly and compliant government in Iraq, the US
> would be in a position to not only check the maneuverability of
> OPEC but also to influence conduct of other powers around the
> globe. The accomplishment of all these strategic goals contemplated
> by the US necessitates enthroning a powerful pro-US government in
> Baghdad which would in turn require a prolonged American military
> presence on Iraqi soil. But the continuation of military occupation
> of Iraq by the US provides a legitimate ground for Iraqi resistance.
> This is the most perplexing dilemma that the United States has
> confronted in Iraq.
>
> http://iranreview.com/Archives/US%20invasion.htm
to do the dirty work. they are the "Economic Hit-Men"
and the U.S. taxpayers are the suckers.
--
Karma, What a concept!
the man
Feb 5, 2013, 11:02:25 AM2/5/13
to
In article <aft2s7djr45vm5b2v...@4ax.com>,
and;
Take the U.S. invasions of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a
dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not
because of our love of democracy but because it�s maybe the second- or
third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of
the major energy-producing region. You�re not supposed to say this. It�s
considered a conspiracy theory.
fo mo;
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/04
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Take the U.S. invasions of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a
dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not
because of our love of democracy but because it�s maybe the second- or
third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of
the major energy-producing region. You�re not supposed to say this. It�s
considered a conspiracy theory.
fo mo;
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/04
--
Karma ; what a concept!
0 new messages