A Test Case En Route to US Hegemony
Linda S. Heard
Arab News
CAIRO, 6 January 2004 -- In a recent interview former Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said: "I don't know why we went to Iraq. It's never been explained." And all this time silly me thought it had been. Wasn't it something to do with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction with which he was poised to destroy his neighbors? Or was it to liberate the Iraqi people from a devilish dictator? Ah! Now I remember. Good old Uncle Sam wants to remake the region in its own "free and democratic" image.
Certainly, the good general meant the reasons for the invasion hadn't been explained to his own satisfaction. Who can blame him? Iraq's WMD have been relegated to such childish myths as Santa and the Tooth Fairy. However, those who indulged in speculation that American designs on Iraq were tied up with power and oil have been vindicated. The label of conspiracy theorist no longer applies.
A recently declassified British government memorandum indicates that following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war when OPEC retaliated against the US for its support of Israel, there was an American government plan to invade the Gulf region and seize its oilfields.
The newly released document shows that Nixon's Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger alerted British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer of the plan, which was to be implemented as "a last resort".
Schlesinger told Lord Cromer that the US would not tolerate threats from "underdeveloped, underpopulated" countries. Pre-emptive strikes were not ruled out in the event that Arab governments "elated by the success of the oil weapon" issued greater demands. Then there is the Iranian precedent. It is common knowledge that the US engineered the ousting of democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh after the Iranian leader kicked out foreign oil companies in the 1950s.
Writer, academic and icon of the left Noam Chomsky, when asked why he thought the US invaded Iraq, said: "The primary goal is to control the immense energy reserves of the Gulf region, Iraq included."
Chomsky warns that Iraq's oil industry could be taken over by foreigners in the future "when attention turns elsewhere" and points out that under a Washington-imposed "status of forces agreement" the US will have the right to maintain its military foothold in Iraq "right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves".
Not only is the US concerned with shoring up its own oil supplies; it is keen on preventing its foes and competitors from gaining a foothold.
A former US ambassador and State Department strategist, George Kennan, suggested as long ago as 1949 that American control over Japanese oil supplies would give the US "veto power" over Japanese industries and military ambitions. His advice was followed. Today read "China and Europe" for "Japan" and you get the picture.
US up-close-and-personal supervision of the region further ensures that oil producing countries refrain from changing over from petrodollars to euros or some other currency, which in turn means that any oil-purchasing state is obliged to keep large reserves of dollars, thus propping up the one major currency not related to the gold standard. Oil producers can also be "persuaded" to invest their wealth in the US and Britain.
Those who control the world's oil, gas and water call the shots. A Washington-based think tank setup in 1997 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, known as The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) knew this only too well when it drew up a white paper in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century".
According to the paper, the US must permanently base forces in Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East; modernize US forces; deploy a global missile defense system; dominate space; control cyberspace and increase defense spending. Today its authors are ensconced in the White House and the Pentagon.
According to a top-level US policy document, the Defense Department has long been ready to fight an oil war. "Strategic Assessment 1999" is the name of a report prepared for the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff pointing out "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security". The report envisages conflicts over oil production facilities and transportation routes particularly in the Gulf and Caspian regions. When Tony Blair emulated Bush's turkey dinner PR exercise by popping into Iraq he spoke of the invasion as a "test case" demonstrating that the world (read the US and Britain) is serious about stopping aggression.
Iraq was a test case indeed; one which proved to the world just how much Bush and Blair can get away with in the furtherance of their hegemonic ambitions.
On July 10, 2002, Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec gave a 24-slide presentation to the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon on defense matters. The last slide headed "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" read ominously: "Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot; Egypt the prize. The pundits have yet to figure this out."
Anyone still shaking their head in the belief that invading Iraq was an essential component of the war on terror with the country's mega oil reserves of little consequence might like to remember this. The Bush family fortune derives from oil; Vice President Dick Cheney formerly headed Halliburton, while American oil giants contributed more than $26 million to ensure George W. Bush's election. There is even an oil tanker named after Presidential Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
In the absence of Iraq's WMD and until Iraq is freed from foreign forces, the official US and British line just won't wash. The US didn't exactly help its "we don't care about oil" case when it prioritized the securing of Iraq's oilfields and Ministry of Oil, while allowing looters free access to hospitals, schools, private homes and museums.
As Bill O'Reilly of Fox News is fond of saying: I don't buy it. Do you?
[Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mideast affairs and can be contacted at heardonthegrapevine at yahoo.co.uk]
Earth, a planet hungry for peace
The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc,5 /24/03).
The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.