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.

 

Will NATO be dragged into new Afghanistan war while US conquers world's oil supplies?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
NATO forces in Afghanistan could be attacked by insurgent forces if US invades Iran and fights a two front war against Iran. US would need NATO peace keeping forces to secure already conquered territory. With civil war in Iraq looming on horizen institution of draft may be inevitable as only way to win war against Iran and occupy Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
 



en.rian.ru
Moscow. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov.) – The United States, in a manner that is already becoming hard to ignore, is clearly doing its best to drag the Atlantic Alliance into a new Afghan war.

Committing to build up the NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan to 15,000 last October, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer left an impression that the Alliance was just going to expand the area of responsibility of its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This deployment had been made reluctantly under intense pressure from Washington who sought to share at least part of responsibility for Afghanistan action with its European allies and was therefore encumbered with a tight ring fence of self-imposed limitations.

In fact, the U.S. has little choice but to get other Western countries equally involved in military operations in Afghanistan as a country that has so far remained largely out of U.S. control could turn into a crucial toehold if the looming prospect of an Iraq-style military attack against Iran becomes reality. If Tehran finally defies European pleas and American demands and goes on with its efforts to build a full-cycle enrichment capability – which looks highly likely – the time-pressed Washington will very soon be facing a dilemma of attacking Iran and beginning a two-front war or looking impassively at the emergence of a new nuclear power. To wage a war against Iran without a secure Afghanistan in the back would be insane.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This information comes from a Russian newspaper so it is undoubtedly biased. However, what if the war on terror was just a grand scheme to place the US in a position to control most of the oil in the middle east.

Iran is undoubtedly the strongest nation militarily in this region so having another front in Afghanistan might prove useful for an invading force. A two or three front invasion with the third invasion force coming from the persian gulf might overwhelm Iranian forces. It would be different than the type of war that Iran fought with Iraq. Iran couldn't concentrate its forces on one front.

The US would be left in control of a major portion of the worlds oil supplies helping to ensure an unimpeded flow of oil to US. The US could use political instability as a reason to keep forces in this region and keep control.

Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.cia.gov

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
OP/ED: Target America: Iran And Its Parallels With 1930's Japan
How I envision Attack on Irans Nuke Facility

[edit on 2-26-2006 by Valhall]

[edit on 26-2-2006 by arius]

[edit on 26-2-2006 by arius]




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
It's quite possible that the whole War on Terror was instigated by the United States as a pretext to secure access to strategic resources. So far its apparent that oil is the primary resource in the cross hairs of the World's sole superpower. But what about when sources of other vital resources becomes tight?

China will gobble up quite a lot of the World's resources and having a reason, outside of overt Imperial ambition, to invade/secure access to key resources is highly important.

NATO's inclusion in Afghanistan is quite minimal and will remain so unless they are attacked by a sovereign army. That might be the only way to drag Europe fully into the fray. If the United States attacks Iran and Iran undoubtedly retaliates against US and allied forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan then the Europeans would be forced to bolster their presence in Afghanistan. Protecting their peacekeeping force necessitates it.

Could this explain the muted, but dogged, European efforts to stop Iran from essentially giving the US a reason to attack her? Surely they realize that they will inevitably be dragged kicking an screaming into a wider Middle Eastern war.

Thanks for referencing my Op/Ed too by the way


[edit on 26/2/06 by subz]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
WWIII anyone? It will be America, NATO, Europe, Canada, and Israel V Middle East. In the end, as Ann COulter told Bush to do, we will invade the Middle East and kill anyone who doesn't convert to Christianity. This will be known in history as the 4th, or 5th, Crusades, where again the winner will write the history.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Could you give us a link, with an excerpt, where Ann Coulter (sp) says this to president Bush?

I haven't heard or seen anything like this and if there was some truth in it it would have been all over the news.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join