Has the War in Iraq Hurt Israel?

Many people say the war in Iraq is all about oil. But thanks to the insurgency Iraq is now producing less oil than it was under Saddam. Sometimes this figure rises but a few attacks later on Iraq’s many miles of oil pipelines soon puts this back into perspective.]

Anybody who still believes it was about WMD’s is a fool. Fact is the CIA and the intelligence services of allied nations are one hell of a force to be reckoned with. So I have long believed that the war in Iraq (like almost everything our military does in the Middle East) was done with Israel firmly in mind.
You see the easy thing to have done would have been to say to Saddam “you improve human rights and we’ll lift sanctions”. “That way you can live in your places and we’ll have a secure supply of oil”. Although a bit of a contradiction in terms (since UN sanctions were detrimental to Iraq’s people) it would still be as much of a reason for policy change as we would require.

But the problem with that is that Saddam was hardly a great fan of Israel. Neither is most (if not all Arab leaders) but in Saddam’s case it would effectively mean arming a man (who even during the sanction regime) supported ANY Palestinian who had been harmed by Israel (including help towards the families of suicide bombers). Arguably this was just a way for Saddam to help sustain popularity-stability at home. But there was something else as well. The Ba’th Party was founded in the 50’s by Arabs with the intention of unifying the Middle East under a government modelled on America. It would tolerate different faiths and aim to build a Western style financial system and infrastructure. Now at first you might have thought the Western nations would support such an initiative but as it turned out they have never liked the idea of a second super power. Whilst it was ok for Saddam (as our ally) to spend a greater percentage of his countries wealth on his own people than any Arab leader it was only ok if he kept it within his own borders. The Iraqi poverty you saw at the start of the invasion was almost exclusively down to U.N sanctions which crippled the country, before that they had over 95% literacy and not a single palace was built or completed since the sanctions were first introduced. Nearly all the motorways and western style infrastructure you saw when the country was being bombed was built by Saddam’s Ba’th before the 1991 sanctions were introduced. Saddam’s claim to Kuwait (which had been part of Iraq for several thousand years before the British colonial occupation of Iraq in the 1920’s) was also a problem so long as Saddam remained sincerely anti Israel.

On Kuwait…
www.transnational.org...
(2nd and 3rd paragraph)
members.aol.com...
www.iowastatedaily.com...
(2nd paragraph)
www.sierratimes.com...
(about a page in)
www.patriceayme.com...
(End of 4th paragraph)

So the war in Iraq was to liberate Iraq’s oil supplies by creating the conditions in which we could remove sanctions; by removing the Iraqi leader who we felt we could do business with so long as he remained anti Israel, pro Ba’thist and held a claim to Kuwait.

But the war in Iraq has not only distributed Iraq’s oil infrastructure by creating-unleashing a large insurgency. Since (for domestic reasons) we needed to say we were invading to install a democracy the democracy we have created has taken power away from the minority secular Sunni population and handed it back to Iraq’s Muslim fundamentalist Shiite population. Any democracy would because the Shiite makes up at least 60% of Iraq’s total population. Trouble is the Shiite are almost exactly the same people as the Iranians. This is bad news because many Shiite want unity between themselves and the Iranians. Though this won’t happen so long as we continue to keep forces their, it remains partially dependant on us keeping forces their.
In addition the Shiite are hardly pro-Israel ether. In fact being Muslim fundamentalists they are probably even more sincerely against Israel than Saddam ever was. Things look even worse when you consider that the current Iranian president was probably elected because of the war in Iraq. Had it not happened his support would have been that much smaller and therefore unable to be a winner. This would almost certainly have been the case had our diplomatic comments towards Iran been that much nicer during the actual Iranian election campaign.

Being a believer in God and the supernatural myself I kind of wonder if Sharon would have had that stroke (which has sent Israeli politics into turmoil) if it had not been for the Iraq war. This is because I believe it is Israel and Friends of Israel (formerly the Zionist movement) which effectively controls our military policy through just about legal means (donations!). (The Israeli government money which goes into the thing certainly helps sustain our love of the damned holy land).
But anyway the last paragraph is my opinion and nothing like as factual as the previous. But do you think is Israel is safer now with or without the Iraq war; surely it has at least made any invasion of Iran that bit more impossible. Why? Had we made friends with Saddam it would be his forces (and not our own) which would be responding to the Iranian threat (just like last time in the Iran Iraq war where he acted like a pawn).

On the contrary my friend, i think the iraq war has only harmed Israel, although that outcome would probably nothave been forseen.

The Iraq war has only increased regional insecurity, has increased the amount of extreme wahabi terrorists and has increased support for organizations like Hamas and Hiz-bollah, who make it their lifes work to make things hard for Israel.

Especially since the iraqi cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr said this...

www.alertnet.org...


Israel are in the worst situation they've been in for a long time...

I tend to agree that the situation in Israel has not improved with the invasion of Iraq. Regional instability has increased, but what be kept in mind is that Iraq and 'the war on terror' is a campaign that does not start and stop in Afganistan and Iraq'. This campaign, should it be followed through, is a policy of 'democratizing' the Arab world. Even at the expense of creation of a theocracy through democracy.
Although the 'Democratization' of the Arab world is what the US leaders want us to think. I think it is a combination of economic and humanitarian issues that makes up this policy.

The hate in the minds and the hearts of Arabs against Israel is a cultural phenomenon attributed to the virulent media manipulation of the Arab/Israeli conflict in those countries. Democratization of them would allow for everyone to express themselves in a freer manner these media manipulations and incitement will eventually decrease and, in time, Moslems will become more moderate. I think that is the goal.

Iran is now in the limelight as the next 'candidate' for an invasion as part of the war on terror. This does not improve Israel's situation since, as usual, in case the US attacks Iran there is a high probability that Iran would retaliate on Israel as well.

Many people say the war in Iraq is all about oil. But thanks to the insurgency Iraq is now producing less oil than it was under Saddam. Sometimes this figure rises but a few attacks later on Iraq’s many miles of oil pipelines soon puts this back into perspective.

The war was more for control of the assets than exploitation of them. Control of the assets allowed for many lucrative construction, pipelines, repairs, oil services and infrastructure contracts worth many billions of dollars.

The war put contractors in a position where they could charge 300 times more for inferior work, and get away with it. War is a wonderful smokescreen for corporate malfeasance. Just look at the enormous profits realized by American/International companies who helped the Nazis during the buildup to the second world war, while at the same time contracting out to the American war effort.

The profiteers are out in full force. I consider them the scum of the earth. Like greedy scalpers and quicky mart gougers, everything should be done in moderation so as not to arouse the anger of the victims (and these greedy morons have completely forgotten the meaning of the word).