It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil, Geopolitics and the Coming War with Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
There are several things to consider with regard to BushCo.'s possible plans to "do" Iran. It's easy to say "it's all about oil.." It's about a lot more than that (and I don't mean WMD - specifically). It's about strategic outlook. Here's an article that gets into some of that.



Oil, Geopolitics and the Coming War with Iran
By Michael T. Klare
TomDispatch

Monday 11 April 2005

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation.

Before proceeding further, let me state for the record that I do not claim oil is the sole driving force behind the Bush administration's apparent determination to destroy Iranian military capabilities. No doubt there are many national security professionals in Washington who are truly worried about Iran's nuclear program, just as there were many professionals who were genuinely worried about Iraqi weapons capabilities. I respect this. But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors -- again including oil -- are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran.
www.truthout.org...




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The U.S. National Energy Policy Development Group, which was headed by Dick Cheney and reported it's findings in May 2001, included this passage, which is now officially part of the National Energy Policy....


Reviewing and Reforming Sanctions

Economic sanctions include U.S. unilateral sanctions as well as multilateral sanctions, such as United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions. Sanctions can advance important national and global security objectives and can be an important foreign policy tool, especially against nations that support terrorism or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, sanctions should be periodically reviewed to ensure their continued effectiveness and to minimize their costs on U.S. citizens and interests.

www.whitehouse.gov...


Considering that this is included in our energy policy, the connection between countries that have a strategic value to the U.S. energy supply and who can be called on the carpet for WMD production and terrorism links is quite clear. Let's be honest here--our future is dependent on Iranian fossil fuels. The only way that the U.S. will be able to meet its energy demands is to get its hands on a currently unattainable supply of Iranian oil--i.e. ensure "energy security." Iranian oil is currently going elsewhere--China, India, Japan. This is a nightmare for the U.S.--and as mentioned in the NEP--sanctions, which will lead to force if necessary--are being used as leverage here.

It is just spin to avoid discussing the fact that oil is the motivation and WMDs are the means. If Iran didn't have a resource that we are desperate to get our hands on, we wouldn't even be discussing war.

In some ways, it is killing two birds with one stone, but the much bigger bird is the benefits that the U.S. will gain by controlling Iranian (Iraqi, Saudi, Venezuelan, Nigerian, Sudani, Qatari) oil & natural gas.

Personally, I think that if Bush & Co. were straight with us, most people would get it. If Bush came out and said "Look, Iran/Iraq/Venezuela/(insert offending nation name here) has us over an oil barrel and because we are locked in to our current fossil fuel demand for at least 10 to 15 years, we need to ensure that (said offending nation) will supply us with the energy that we require. Instead of working with us, the leader of (said offending nation) has decided to build up their military and has expressed intentions to align against us. What this all means is that in a few years, the price of oil is going to be so high that you all are going to have to give up your SUVs and drive a Honda, carpool with your annoying neighbors to get to work, and do without Twinkies on demand because it is going to be too expensive to truck in groceries on a regular basis. The worst case scenario is that they send all the fuel we need to China and they become the next big superpower--and that will mean you have to give up your car and take public transportation; rolling black-outs, so no American Idol or Desperate Housewives on TV; and Viagra will disappear off of the pharmacy shelves. Life as we Americans know it will be over. This is why we need to go to war with (said offending nation)," I think most people would understand the need to protect our energy security--as well as embrace conservation... especially if they knew that the price of a Big Mac was going to increase to 15 bucks (all that oil, y'know...)



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Excellent points, lmgnyc.


posted by IMGNYC:
Iranian oil is currently going elsewhere--China, India, Japan. This is a nightmare for the U.S.--and as mentioned in the NEP--sanctions, which will lead to force if necessary--are being used as leverage here.


For over a decade, academia has been completely derelict in downplaying the ascendancy of China. Their voracious (second only to the U.S.) need for oil & gas are most definitlely the biggest foreign policy problem we will face in the coming years.


Posted by:IMGNYC
Personally, I think that if Bush & Co. were straight with us, most people would get it.


It would be a nice start; but try explaining the politics of oil to an American public with the attention span of a 5 year old.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think oil is a big part of it but there's more. Now countries like Iran are switching to Euros instead of dollars and that will damage the U.S. economy which another reason the U.S. want to invade. I read that somewhere awhile back. If the Bush Administration was straight with us the majority of Americans would definetely be against the war. Heck my mom doesn't believe for a second that the war has anything to do with oil. People still don't understand why gas prices contiune to rise.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I think oil is a big part of it but there's more. Now countries like Iran are switching to Euros instead of dollars and that will damage the U.S. economy


That seemed like reason #1 to me during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. As I've said before, keeping our military's boot on the neck of OPEC. We're only making enemies and driving allies away with this policy, tho.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
People, let's just hope that there won't be a staged demonstration of the Iran's "nuclear capability" in order to justify the invasion.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
People, let's just hope that there won't be a staged demonstration of the Iran's "nuclear capability" in order to justify the invasion.


Like what? Considering the Iraq WMD excuse was blown to shyte, they're gonna need some kind of pretext. But then again, those who are sleepwalking through today's America, would probly go along w/whatever BushCo. does.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You are right ECK, Oil, Myth and politics.

Is actually a book that talks about that and its correlations, by Doran C.F.

The topics is actually about the trasformation of international oil politics and commerce in an effort to take over the world market by countries involved on the (OPEC).

I wonder sometimes how in the world oil has become so important in our politics as to take all kind of matters into hands just to own it.

The author of this book make a good effor to show how secrecy, lack of information, power, exageration and media involment has made oil a myth.

As anybody wonder why we are stuck with unfair oil prices and we just take it and pay for it?

I always wonder also why we have been manipulated by corporate profits and regulations.

Does any body wonder how we have been going into war in false pretences as for others to profit, but we still stuck with the bills.

What another war with Iran is going to do to us, the consumer? not a Darn thing but more deficit more regulations and budget cuts.

Who is really profiting from all this?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
well, if the war in Iraq was about Oil- WE LOST
They are not exporting even close to the pre-invasion levels.

We do NOT have to go to war to secure our 'share' of oil. WE do not have to become a 3rd world country. If we had a leader who would not take the neocon path, we could of been ahead of the game 4 years ago.

My personal belief is that President Bush is making profits, and his buddies are making profits, and all is well with the rich and powerful. Defense contractors get their cut, millionaires and billionaires get their cut, and INTERNATIONAL corporations get their cut. When the Merde hits the fan, then they just move to a place in the WORLD where they feel safer, (not necessarily the US) since we are now even more of a target then we were in 2001.

Even Cheney and Bush have their ranches super-efficient and are not dependant on outside reliance of energy and water.

The vehicles of transportation we have in this country were meant for cheap oil. PERIOD. They weigh alot for safety- and have really great pick-up so you can cruise to 65 on the freeway easily- They've suckered us, and we fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. How willing are you to buy a lighter, smaller, 3 or 4 cyclinder vehicle? It doesn't necessarily have to be hybrid.

If Iran is the second war the neocons will sponsor, what will be the third? and fourth? The world blames Americans for being so extremely wasteful, making their energy prices higher- It isn't easy to be a world traveler these days-



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This will probably go down like this;

Isreal bombs an Iranian "nuke" facility
Iran retaliates
Isreal asks for US help.

US invades Iran from convenient bases in Afghanistan and Iraq......

wwIII ! yipee !



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Excellent points, Marg. Let us consider..


Originally posted by marg6043
You are right ECK, Oil, Myth and politics.

Is actually a book that talks about that and its correlations, by Doran C.F.


What are some of the conclusions reached?


The topics is actually about the trasformation of international oil politics and commerce in an effort to take over the world market by countries involved on the (OPEC).


I would encourage everyone to look into and try and understand how our economy is being propped up by trading in PetroDollars; and what it would mean to our economy if they switched to the Euro. It's like a knife to our nation's neck, basically.


I wonder sometimes how in the world oil has become so important in our politics as to take all kind of matters into hands just to own it.


Our entire infrastructure and military must have oil to operate. That's the bottom line. It would take YEARS, according to what I've read and heard, to switch to other forms of energy. This president should immediately enlist America's scientific and business community to come up with viable alternatives - just as Kennedy did with the space program. It most likely won't happen, though; as we all know these boyz is BIG OIL allaway.



Does any body wonder how we have been going into war in false pretences as for others to profit, but we still stuck with the bills.


America has forgotten that we are far more numerous and powerful than those in government. Or, we have simply become so apathetic that it does not matter. What I want to know is, just what exactly could wake and rile the masses into action?


What another war with Iran is going to do to us, the consumer? not a Darn thing but more deficit more regulations and budget cuts.


I read a report that came out recently on the state of today's Army, Marine Corps, National Guard and Reserves. The bottom line is this: Either get out of Iraq or re-instate the draft. If we don't do one of the two, those forces will be completely broken. If we go into Iran, we will almost certainly be facing the draft. And I know a lot of folks do not believe it can happen. Believe it. It will happen.


Who is really profiting from all this?


The usual suspects. Those holding shares in big oil, arms manufacturers, private contracting companies and the pharmaceutical industry. The citizens of the U.S. surely are not.

Ask yourself the old question: Are you better off today than you were before 2000? Although, I have a good job; I was doing better back then. The price of everything has gone UP. Even though I've gotten raises each year, its really meaningless. It hasn't matched the price rise of everything else.









posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Everybody has been talking about inflation guess what is here, is already here, and are looking at the result of the dependency on oil

Oil goes up everything get to go up with it, not only the gas but everything that uses gas to transport and operate our country.

Inflation is here.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
www.worldnetdaily.com...

NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Iran nuke commercial
hits TV markets
Spot depicting atomic terror attack in NYC to be seen in 20 cities

A commercial produced by an organization fighting for the freedom of Iran that depicts a nuclear terror attack in America – the kind many experts believe is possible should Tehran get the bomb – will run in 20 markets across the country this month.
Titled "An Atomic 9-11: When Evil is Appeased," the spot, sponsored by the Iran Freedom Foundation, is based on a scenario described in the new WND Books release "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," by Jerome R. Corsi, co-author of the best-selling "Unfit for Command."

War #2 Condi will have a blast selling this one (Isn't Israel more at risk of being attacked than the good ole us of a??????)



[edit on 13-4-2005 by accountability]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by accountability

www.worldnetdaily.com...

NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Iran nuke commercial
hits TV markets
Spot depicting atomic terror attack in NYC to be seen in 20 cities

A commercial produced by an organization fighting for the freedom of Iran that depicts a nuclear terror attack in America – the kind many experts believe is possible should Tehran get the bomb – will run in 20 markets across the country this month.
Titled "An Atomic 9-11: When Evil is Appeased," the spot, sponsored by the Iran Freedom Foundation, is based on a scenario described in the new WND Books release "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," by Jerome R. Corsi, co-author of the best-selling "Unfit for Command."

War #2 Condi will have a blast selling this one



I'm totally scared by this propaganda. And by the way, the ad mentions a 150 kt "improvized nuclear device". Let me tell you, that's a load of BS. It's damn hard to "improvise" such a powerful device. It's about the power of an average warhead of an ICBM.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by accountability
www.worldnetdaily.com...

NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Iran nuke commercial
hits TV markets
Spot depicting atomic terror attack in NYC to be seen in 20 cities

A commercial produced by an organization fighting for the freedom of Iran that depicts a nuclear terror attack in America – the kind many experts believe is possible should Tehran get the bomb – will run in 20 markets across the country this month.
Titled "An Atomic 9-11: When Evil is Appeased," the spot, sponsored by the Iran Freedom Foundation, is based on a scenario described in the new WND Books release "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," by Jerome R. Corsi, co-author of the best-selling "Unfit for Command."

War #2 Condi will have a blast selling this one (Isn't Israel more at risk of being attacked than the good ole us of a??????)



[edit on 13-4-2005 by accountability]



Just had a quick glance over the " Iran Freedom Foundation" website. Strange a website fighting for a Iran's freedom does not have Iranian flag or even a hint of persian(whatever language is spoken in Iran). These so called "courageous Iranian scholars, intellectuals, journalists, students, artists and politicians" ever been to Iran or they just lend their voice to the media propoganda.

As for Presidents Bush Quote:
And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.
It might be worthwhile saying that Iran is probably among the few Islamic countries which holds elections regularly. We support Saudi Arabia's farce municipal elections (no women voters, no universal suffarage) and condemn Iran's election as rigged.
The only justification is oil. If Saudi Arabia wasn't an ally we would have invaded them long back. If Iran allows American companies to run oil rigs in Iran, I am sure all the nuclear threats will disappear.

Republican's...Stop spending my taxpayer dollars on false propoganda and invading for oil.. Give me a decent public transport to rduce my dependency on gas rather than sending American soldiers to Iraq and I will vote for you next time...
OUT



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
"Republican's...Stop spending my taxpayer dollars on false propoganda and invading for oil.. Give me a decent public transport to rduce my dependency on gas rather than sending American soldiers to Iraq and I will vote for you next time...
OUT"

sorry Quake, but the administration has covered it's behind on this one. It's a non-profit - which means that Republicans and Democrats can contribute to it-


And we have to bomb Iran, because it's for their own good. Just keep looking at the mushroom cloud and say over and over- it could be NYC- YEAH< RIGHT_

Shock and AWE II. but wait..... don't we have to bomb Syria first???? and what about North Korea? Venezuela, Columbia, and Soviet satellite country investments. It's so hard to keep track of which target should be priority.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
EastCoastKid and your sidekick, mrmulder, question:
Are the both of you factually advocating/predicting that the US and Bush will go to war with Iran over oil based on your sourcings from truthout.org and other like sites?

You know, just using a bit of common sense and all, why Iran? If the US and Bush are seeking merely OIL then why not go to war with Kuwait, Canada, Venezuela, Jordan, and a few other places that would be ummmm, easier prey?

Personally and subjectively, your pushing an agenda fed from the alternative sourcings you use. How so? Well as military person as you, please provide some credible sourcing to verify this statement:


As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran...

Please show me where we are "gearing up" for war, k?

Your article quotes a 2003 statement made by Bush. Umm, its 2005, ECK. As such, both the US and Israel have publically ruled out attacking Iran.

This can go on and objectively, I'm having a hard time seeing where your misleading title is a Peak Oil topic. Predicitions, maybe?







seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Oil and Iran

There is no doubt that oil plays a part in any action with Iran and Iraq. I think it would be silly to argue otherwise. However, to act as if it is the main reason to go to war with Iraq or Iran (or anyone else) is just plain wrong.

ECK, I was actually excited to see your first post - I got the impression that this was going to be a non biased disussion on the influence of the energy trade on our ME policy. Unfortunatly, this turned into yet another Bush bashing thread instead of sticking to what I thought was the spirit of the thread.

Any way, if I had to put a percentage on how much energy influenced our actions in Iraq, I would say it would be 15-20%. I would put fear of Saddam developing a WMD to attack the US (or ally) with at 50%. I would say that taking out a brutal dictator would be 35-40%.

With Iran, I think it would be 90% fear of them developing a nuke, and 10% energy. That may sound very lopsided to someone such as your self who is so critical of the Bush administration, but let me explain if I may. The single worst thing for the US economy (and US in general) would be a nuke going off in a major city. A single attack like this in NY, DC, or LA would probably be enough to make the US economy fail.

Basically, Iran represents much more of a threat to the US then Iraq did. They have the ability to make nukes in the near future, they have an Islamic theocracy which has a stated goal of destroying Isreal, and leadership which (rightly or wrongly) hates the US. Their country is full of terrorist sympothizers to boot. Allowing Iran to go nuclear would not only prevent the US from exerting it's influence over Irans energy resources, but would pose perhaps the greatest nuclear threat to the US since the cold war.

In my mind (and I would suspect US leadership) reaping the economic and energy benefits from an occupied Iran would be icing on the cake. The real threat isn't from a lack of energy for the US economy, it is the collapse of the economy it's self from an Iran backed nuclear terrorist attack on the US.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
EastCoastKid and your sidekick, mrmulder, question:
Are the both of you factually advocating/predicting that the US and Bush will go to war with Iran over oil based on your sourcings from truthout.org and other like sites?

You know, just using a bit of common sense and all, why Iran? If the US and Bush are seeking merely OIL then why not go to war with Kuwait, Canada, Venezuela, Jordan, and a few other places that would be ummmm, easier prey?

Personally and subjectively, your pushing an agenda fed from the alternative sourcings you use. How so? Well as military person as you, please provide some credible sourcing to verify this statement:


As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran...

Please show me where we are "gearing up" for war, k?

Your article quotes a 2003 statement made by Bush. Umm, its 2005, ECK. As such, both the US and Israel have publically ruled out attacking Iran.

This can go on and objectively, I'm having a hard time seeing where your misleading title is a Peak Oil topic. Predicitions, maybe?



seekerof


Since when is Canada in the "axis of evil'??

I mean, those Canadians have been making deals with the Chinese, but I wouldn't toss them in with Saddam just yet.

And the Venezuelans aren't quite "evil" yet, either. "Axis of drama queens", perhaps. However, Chavez certainly feels the need to protect his country from something, what with all those Russian and Spanish weapons he has been purchasing lately. Could it possibly have something to do with the U.S. reaction to the failed coup attempt a few years ago? I doubt that the U.S. is running off to make war with the Venezuelans, but I think that we'd sure like to replace Chavez with a puppet that will stop selling oil that is 4 days from our shores to the wrong places.... but that ain't gonna happen without a fight.

Iran is another story. That "axis of evil" thing that Bush keeps mentioning--I don't think including Iran was just because he couldn't think of the name of another country in the Middle East. Tensions have been mounting with Iran since before we invaded Iraq and whether Iran will be coerced into submission via sanctions or a full-on war, the U.S. has Iran and it's oil & natural gas in it's sights and Iran's WMD ambitions will be used as the vehicle to access to this supply (see the NEP quote in my previous post).

So whether or not you believe Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who exposed the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib, is up to you. His pretty reliable sources have revealed to him that the U.S. is conducting surveillance missions in Iran so they won't be caught unprepared (like Iraq) if they need to attack (as published in his controversial New Yorker article "The Coming Wars"), of course, this was categorically denied by the Bush administration (but not that there are already troops on the ground inside the borders of Iran.)

The facts are that the U.S. is left out of the feeding frenzy for Iranian oil--and they are currently one of the largest producing nations behind the Saudis--Iraq might have the second largest reserves, but Iran is producing like crazy to the point of damaging their fields. Unfortunately, due to the WMD sanctions, the U.S. can't partake--China is the main consumer.

The EU talks with Iran have been all over the news for months and Iran is certainly concerned as the U.S. has interfering with it's affairs--directly promoting democracy within its borders. It also seems that the only acceptable solution for Israel--and by default the U.S. is for the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and it seems that all parties are unwilling to meet in the middle.

According to the British buzz, if talks fail, Israel has secret plans to attack Iran if diplomatic means fail (Cheney also publically stated fears of Israel attacking Iran). Sharon said this week when he and Bush were down in Crawford that they have no plans to act unilaterally. I have my doubts.

I am sure that everyone wishes the EU talks to be successful and a compromise to be reached diplomatically, but it is doubtful that this will happen because the Iranians are not willing to give up their nuclear program and the U.S. and Israel will accept no less.

As of Friday, Condi Rice has set a summer deadline for the talks, and then things will escalate.

So is it a prediction that things will get physical with Iran? Sure. Why Iran and not somewhere else? Oil and WMDs--it is a PNAC wet dream. Oil is the goal, WMDs are the means to achieve it. Considering that Iran is at least a decade from acquiring a weapon, why all the fuss now? We have a few years to work this one out... There is no way that the U.S. will go to war with a stated reason that it is over an imperialistic reason like oil--but you have to question the timing. Things with Iran could escalate quickly with a summer deadline for diplomacy and we aren't even done in Iraq. Why now?

Very soon, the Iranian oil production will decline quickly because without significant investment and their continued overproduction, their existing fields will be destroyed beyond repair. "Someone" needs to get control of that... now--and not the Chinese.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Please show me where we are "gearing up" for war, k?
seekerof

in the nuke commercial that was posted by 'me'
20 citiies will show Iran bombing NYC- the famous Condi Rice mushroom cloud. If that isn't gearing up for war- then what is???

Just like Iraq, ya gotta butter up them there Americans to the idea, that for their security, they need to support our leaders in their decision to bomb the hell outta somebody.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join