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.

 

Middle East Control? Almost!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Hi guys,

apologies if this has been covered, but I have yet to see this put forward as a possible reason for the US et al to lay seige on Iran.

worldatlas.com...

The US have control of Afghanistan and Iraq which just leaves Iran and Syria as dissenting nations in the Middle East. If the conspiracies of NWO and US' oil grabbing are to be believed then surely the US will put troops into Iran to bridge the gap between Iraq and Afghanistan and give the US a free hand from the Med all the way up to China's border.

Oil control and the future threat of China could be just two of the reasons for the west to take control of the Middle East; but I think it would be difficult to argue that Iran is the key to controlling that region.

I put it to the members that the US et al will put troops into Iran by hook or by crook for the reasons mentioned above; China or oil flow? I just wonder if control of the oil is a measure necessary to control China's rapid industrial growth and wealth??

Your ideas and theories are welcomed, thank you!

Best Wishes

J




posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad


The US have control of Afghanistan and Iraq which just leaves Iran and Syria as dissenting nations in the Middle East.

J



pretty interesting that israel is blaming iran and syria for the recent tel aviv bombings.. my question is how can they find out how and when and by who the attack was financed and planned so quickly..? i bet they are just throwing around accusations with no evidence, to gain support for the coming war with them. All we need now is a similar "attack" in europe and the US then blame it on something like "al-qaeda of iran" or some other such nonsense as well.....then it begins.. with major support of the citizens.

news.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Hi turbo,

thanks for the news link, I'd missed that one. Seems to fit the bill as to the last two ducks at the shooting gallery?

Time will tell.

Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
also i think its rather convenient that osama released a new tape threatening more attacks.. just in time... another link in the chain..
kinda funny how things work out.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbokid
also i think its rather convenient that osama released a new tape threatening more attacks.. just in time... another link in the chain..
kinda funny how things work out.


Yup, its like a half completely jigsaw. you put enough pieces in, and people will look to see what picture they can make out of it, but not at what they can't see.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad
The US have control of Afghanistan and Iraq


If the US had control of Iraq, the US wouldn't need to have 140,000 troops there and they certainly wouldn't need to send extra because their troops are getting slaughtered every day.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Manincloak]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak


If the US had control of Iraq, the US wouldn't need to have 140,000 troops there and they certainly wouldn't need to send extra because their troops are getting slaughtered every day.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Manincloak]


But they've managed to destabilise the country so much that it won't be a potential ally to Iran in any invasion. Iran has always been the endgame.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
awlays new usa trying to take over world.....



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hands
But they've managed to destabilise the country so much that it won't be a potential ally to Iran in any invasion. Iran has always been the endgame.


What? Are you suggesting if Sadam was in power he would help Iran?

Are you forgetting that he HIMSELF INVADED IRAN, and that the two countries hate each other?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
no the 2 countrys dont hate eachother.Saddam hates iran
iran only hate Saddam and his followers they dont hate the people
iraqi people dont hate iran or its president only saddam and his men do most of the hating



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Hi guys,

Thanks for your comments on this subject.

I agree that it certainly appears that the pieces of the jigsaw are finally falling into place. The US now have bases and allies surrounding both Iran and Syria which means that logistical needs are easily met, and remember the problems with Turkey etc in trying to gain permissions for flying over their airspace; now the US have control of Afghanistan and Iraq airspace and can hit Iran on at least three fronts.

I must admit that it appears that either Iran's actions are foolish or they are bunkering down for a war, either way it doesn't look good for Middle East peace.

Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak

What? Are you suggesting if Sadam was in power he would help Iran?

Are you forgetting that he HIMSELF INVADED IRAN, and that the two countries hate each other?


I know that but don't you think that they both hated the USA *much* more and wouldn't Saddam have loved it to come to Iran's side in their hour of need? And I truly think that TPTB really thought they could win the war in Iraq... A destabilized Iraq is still much better proposition than a Saddam controlled Iraq for TPTB.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

iran only hate Saddam and his followers they dont hate the people


Wait, where are you getting this? You do realize that those car bombs that kill lots of Iraqis are probobly from Iran?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
To add to my posts up the thread ....


There is an Arab proverb - 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad
The US have control of Afghanistan and Iraq which just leaves Iran and Syria as dissenting nations in the Middle East.


Afghanistan is not under control, the majority of the north is still the domain of the rebels, and the porous border with Pakistan is still causing widespread problems with the capture of terrorist suspects and their supporters. Iraq is only held together by the deals made with the Shia Milita by the US.


Originally posted by gingerlad
If the conspiracies of NWO and US' oil grabbing are to be believed then surely the US will put troops into Iran to bridge the gap between Iraq...

The US milistary is on record, last August, declaring they are not able to provide the forces for such a venture.


Originally posted by gingerlad
Oil control and the future threat of China could be just two of the reasons for the west to take control of the Middle East;


The US must maintain the flow of oil, with its economy dependant on and increasing demand for oil. This does not mean just getting their hands on the oil fields, but also on the refiening and distribution infrastructure as well. Military action in Iran would disrupt this supply.

China is only and economic threat not a military aggressor.


Originally posted by gingerlad
I put it to the members that the US et al will put troops into Iran by hook or by crook...


I put it to you that the US does not have the capability to hit Iran with anything more significant than trade sanctions - which will do little to prevent its nuclear ambitions - for the next three to five years.

In fact the whole US foreign policy is moving towards a dangerous time for US domestic oil supplies and in turn economic hardship.

I think the average US citizen should be more worried about how much a gallon of fuel is going to cost, and how they will afford the domestic gas prices; rather than a preemptive nuclear strike from Iran.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expositor

The US milistary is on record, last August, declaring they are not able to provide the forces for such a venture.

The US must maintain the flow of oil, with its economy dependant on and increasing demand for oil. This does not mean just getting their hands on the oil fields, but also on the refiening and distribution infrastructure as well. Military action in Iran would disrupt this supply.

China is only and economic threat not a military aggressor.

I put it to you that the US does not have the capability to hit Iran with anything more significant than trade sanctions - which will do little to prevent its nuclear ambitions - for the next three to five years.

In fact the whole US foreign policy is moving towards a dangerous time for US domestic oil supplies and in turn economic hardship.



Hi Expositor,

thanks for your well constructed arguments.

China's burgeoning oil consumption alone could be viewed as reason enough for the US to control the supply of oil and protect their own growing requirements for such fuels.

If the US take control of world oil, they then control the world's growing economies; policing such foreign policies as controlling world oil-flow is guaranteed to raise further the levels of resentment towards the US. Seems the US is damned if it does and equally damned if it doesn't.

As for the US Military; what do you want them to say? Yes we have the manpower and capability to walk into Iran tomorrow!? Maybe, just maybe that's the reason for the nuclear cards being played with regards to Iran.

It is well known that skirmishes exist in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the main point I'm making is that the US control the infrastructure of each nation and have troops, hardware and bases established in each of the countries. This is vitally important in any future conflict in that region, and in particular with regards to Iran which is a large battle-hardened nation.

I am no soothsayer but the way this is playing out if the US or Iran are playing a game of bluff I see only one outcome; now pass me my hard hat. ;-]


Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad
If the US take control of world oil, they then control the world's growing economies; policing such foreign policies as controlling world oil-flow is guaranteed to raise further the levels of resentment towards the US. Seems the US is damned if it does and equally damned if it doesn't.



As to the US being dammed if they do or do not, it is tempting for Americans to think that they are being persecuted.

But, if you take the emotion out of this and look at it as a question of economics it becomes clearer.

The US is the largest net importer of oil with over a quater of its total oil supply coming from abroad. Of this 15 Million Barrells a day pass through the Straits of Hormuz, the flashpoint for conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

In 1983 the Pentagon established a Central Command -one of five- with the sole purpose of maintaing the global petroleum supply.

In 1980 President Jimmy Carter expressed the importance of the Middle East oil reserves when he said access to the Persian Gulf should be secured "by any means necessary, including military force."

So control of Iran would fit with the trend established back in the eighties.

The political rehtoric is already moving towards the demonisation of the Iranians, and talk of supposed WMD capability albeit in the future. The likleyhood of military action in Iran is certainly possible. After all the US were happy to commit to Iraq before it had secured Afghanistan. It has shown it is happy to let its soldiers die doing the job of a global oil police force.

Now look at the other side of the economic coin. The average MPG for American cars and light trucks is 24.7 miles per gallon. By improving this by 2.4 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks America could completly remove its need to import oil and could survive at present on its own domestic supply. This would diminish - short term - the stratigic importance of the Persian Gulf, an area historically prone to conflict and fundamentalism.

So to return to the point, the real indication of immienent war with Iran would be the US military's current deployable capability. Are there any indications that the Pentagon has change position on its August 2005 statement that the US did not currently have capacity for further troop deployments?
After the problems encountered during the aftermath of Katrina, and the difficulty in deploying National Guardsmen, is there any mention of introducing the draft again?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hands
There is an Arab proverb - 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'


Iran is predominantly Persian.

It is also predominantly Shia, who have a dispute with Sunnis over who should have succeeded the Prophet Muhammed. A dispute so hotly disputed that the extremist Sunnis, to which Al-Qaeda are made up of, view Shias as not muslims and worthy of only being slain.

Hence Al-Zarqawi's group targetting Shias, despite Shia Militias themselves fighting US-UK forces.

It is a dispute so old over thousands of years, that not even both Iran and Al-Qaeda having a dim view of the US could lead to Iran's leadership or Al-Qaeda to ever being chums, let along work together.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Regensturm]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by hands

I know that but don't you think that they both hated the USA *much* more and wouldn't Saddam have loved it to come to Iran's side in their hour of need? And I truly think that TPTB really thought they could win the war in Iraq... A destabilized Iraq is still much better proposition than a Saddam controlled Iraq for TPTB.


Saddam is said to have pleaded with Iran in desperation to join forces with him against the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Iran snubbed him. Iran wanted him gone.

The same with Syria, who saw him as a rival to who was the Baathists leader of the region.

Saddam hated Iran, mainly because they threatened his ego as his assumption of Iraq being a regional superpower, but also because like the rebellious Shias in Iraq, Iran was also Shia, and religious, as opposed to his secularism.

Saddam was scared of the Iranians getting a foothold in Iraq via the Shias in the Basra area, or the Shias in Iraq getting powerful in Iraq with the encouragement of Iran, and invaded Iran.

He also wanted to keep his army busy from overthrowing him.

I doubt Saddam would have intervened on Iran's side if he was still around, mainly because it would have weakened his tough image against Shia fundamentalism to fellow Baathists, but also he would have just liked to see both Iran weakened, and the US bogged down in Iran, seeing mutual enemies of his shedding each other's blood.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expositor

So to return to the point, the real indication of immienent war with Iran would be the US military's current deployable capability. Are there any indications that the Pentagon has change position on its August 2005 statement that the US did not currently have capacity for further troop deployments?
After the problems encountered during the aftermath of Katrina, and the difficulty in deploying National Guardsmen, is there any mention of introducing the draft again?



Hi Expositor,

you make some excellent and very valid points in regards to the consumption figures, but I just feel this is a bit more than supplying the US' oil needs; IMHO its more about the long term protection of its vested interests and the possibility of other nations staking a claim and profiteering by creating deliberate instability. Iran has already hinted at this possibility if sanctions are placed upon them.

I also agree that at present the US (on its own) would be very hard pushed to fight a new war and contain Iraq and Afghanistan. I would certainly look for the possibility of a draft (conscription) or for peacekeepers to move into Afghanistan and/or Iraq to free up troops should the need arise. I would be looking for France, Germany, Japan and some of the other Oil dependent nations to be receiving some US strong-arm tactics to push the agenda.

I believe the nuclear hand is certainly going to be flogged to death, more so because of the desperation of the Iranians in their attempts to keep US troops off Iranian soil. The thought of US troops on their home soil would be too much for most Iranians to contemplate. It's certainly going to be a bit of a pressure cooker and I certainly wouldn't fancy being in Iran in the next 6-12 months.

I see the US as being the world's 'Filling Station' of the future, they ensure the supply and reap the profit and at the same time ensuring home supplies to keep the voters/citizens content.

As an aside, I saw a report the other day stating that oil was regarded by some scientist as not being a fossil fuel and that resources of oil etc were being renewed naturally by good old Mother Earth. I'll drop a link to you if I can find it.


Best Wishes

J

[edit on 25/1/06 by gingerlad]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join