Rifkin is the author of The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&OID=7508

Propaganda 101 (1-7-03)
Behind the Great Divide (2-18-03)
Oil, intimidation, rage - why we are really at war (3-20-03)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 20, 2002
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Corporate Interest in Iraqi Oil

by Sean Gonsalves

Shouldn't we be having a vigorous debate about the oil politics fueling this conflict? After all, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are all scrambling for economic control of Iraq's oil reserves.

Read the industry mags and you'll quickly learn that Iraq possesses the second largest oil reserves on the planet, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, or about 11 percent of the world total. Many experts believe that Iraq has more undiscovered reserves, which could double its total petrol production once vigorous prospecting resumes. That would put Iraq up there with Saudi Arabia as one of the world's most profitable oil sources, according to industry experts. Oil companies are drooling at the prospect. One industry insider called it "a boom waiting to happen."

There's also the fact that five companies dominate the global oil industry. In order of size, the firms are Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell, British Petroleum-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco and TotalElfFina.

A recent report assembled by political scientists and church officials points out: "U.S.-based Exxon-Mobil looms largest among the world's oil companies and, by some yardsticks, measures as the world's biggest company. The United States consequently ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the United Kingdom second and France trailing as a distant third. Considering that the United States and the United Kingdom act almost alone as (Iraq) sanctions advocates and enforcers, and that they are the headquarters of the world's four largest oil companies, we cannot ignore the possible relationship of (military) policy with this powerful corporate interest."

And let's not forget that U.S. and UK companies had a three-quarter share in Iraq's oil production before the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Co., when the Iraqi government began to make steps to gain greater control of its oil resources.

In a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr candidly remarked: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." He then voiced his support for the current sanctions regime.

Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the president's most influential national security adviser, was a board member of Chevron before going to work in the White House. Chevron even named one of its supertankers in her honor.

Now, anyone acquainted with the history of Middle East oil politics knows that U.S. policy-makers' interest in dominating the world oil industry goes back to when Rice was a mere twinkle in her father's eye.

But given all these corporate scandals and the close ties that the Bush administration has with big oil, don't you think we owe it to ourselves, and especially to the young men and women in our armed services, to thoroughly investigate this stuff?

To date, Congress and the "liberal" media have, unfortunately, generated more heat than light on this story behind the story.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-01.htm

U.S. after Iraq's oil? Don't be daft (11-10-02)
It's the Oil, Stupid: Markets of Mass Destruction (2-14-03)
The thing is, it is about oil (2-16-03)
Iraq is an excuse to attack the oil business (2-18-03)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to outline


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PART II: Everything for Oil: West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


September 25, 2002
The Cato Institute

It's Not About Oil?

by Charles V. Peña

Even if going to war against Iraq is not completely about oil (weapons of mass destruction are much scarier), it's impossible to ignore and even more foolish to think it's not an important factor: Would this debate be taking place if the country in question was in sub-Saharan Africa? After all, the Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Just remember the adage: Follow the money ... or in this case, the oil.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-25-02.html

U.S. Guilty of 'Shocking Double Standards' on Iraq - Butler (1-28-03)
For 30 years, America has acted hypocritically in wielding its UN veto (3-16-03)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2003
Worldwatch Institute

Post-Saddam Iraq:
Linchpin of a New Oil Order

By Michael Renner

Only in the most direct sense is the Bush administration’s Iraq policy directed against Saddam Hussein. In contrast to all the loud talk about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and human rights violations, very little is being said about oil. The administration has been tight-lipped about its plans for a post-Saddam Iraq and has repeatedly disavowed any interest in the country’s oil resources. But press reports indicate that U.S. officials are considering a prolonged occupation of Iraq after their war to topple Saddam Hussein. It is likely that a U.S.-controlled Iraq will be the linchpin of a new order in the world oil industry. Indeed, a war against Iraq may well herald a major realignment of the Middle East power balance.

[This is the introductory paragraph to a long, excellent article, worth reading in its entirety]

http://www.fpif.org/papers/oil.html
http://www.fpif.org/papers/oil_body.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, August 5, 2002
CommonDreams.org

Iraq and the New Great Game

by Rahul Mahajan

In the run-up to the [first] Gulf War, government officials put forth a bewildering array of reasons for the war, culminating with Secretary of State Baker's fatuous claim that "it's about jobs."

So what is really going on?

Let's start with what are not the reasons for the war. None of those put forth by the Bush administration hold water.

When all the official justifications collapse, what is left is the same ugly three-letter word that has always been at the core of U.S. Middle East policy -- oil. It's important to clarify, however, that U.S. policy is neither simply about access to oil, which is how mainstream commentators frame it, nor is it completely dictated by oil companies, as some on the left claim.

Access to oil can be obtained by paying for it, as other countries do. The United States has a different attitude because it is an empire, not merely a nation. On any given day, U.S. troops are in 140 countries around the world, with permanent bases in over half of those. After two decades of structural adjustment and one of "free trade," the United States has more control over the internal policies of other countries than the elected governments of those countries. Although "globalization" was recently the more visible face of this imperial expansion, it always had a military underpinning -- and currently the military aspect is dominant.

This empire is predicated, like past empires, on political control for the purpose of economic control and resource and surplus extraction. Oil is the world's most important resource, and control of the flow and pricing of oil is a potent source of political power, as well as a significant source of profits. Oil companies, arms companies, and general corporate America are all intimately concerned with U.S. Middle East policy.

The sanctions have turned the Iraqi regime permanently against the United States. If they were lifted, the government would make oil exploration deals with French and Russian companies, not American ones. Continuation of the sanctions is a constant political burden for the United States. The Bush administration wants a war to extricate itself from this stalemate, by replacing Saddam with a U.S.-friendly dictator who will make deals with American companies and follow American dictates.[Iraq without Saddam]

The United States seeks nothing less than the establishment of complete control over all significant sources of oil, especially of the Middle East, which holds roughly two thirds of the world's proven reserves. The twin requirements of U.S. imperial control and the constant feeding of an industrial system based on ever-increasing levels of fossil fuel consumption dovetail with the systematic attempts of the United States to keep Middle Eastern countries from developing independent economies to set the stage for large-scale re-colonization, through war, "covert" action, and economic coercion.

This war is not about minor domestic squabbles between Democrats and Republicans, but about a very ugly New World Order, in which innocents in the Middle East, Central Asia, and in the United States pay for the imperial dreams of an increasingly detached American elite.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0805-08.htm
http://www.rahulmahajan.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30, 2002

The Nation

The September 11 X- Files
by David Corn

[While offering a skeptical analysis of some of the more extreme 'conspiracy' theories regarding the events of September 11, Corn nevertheless concludes that:]

Official accounts ought not to be absorbed without scrutiny. Clandestine agendas and unacknowledged geostrategic factors--such as oil--may well shape George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 21, 2002
CommonDreams.org

September 11th: Conspiracy-itis

Marty Jezer

And oil? Most foreign policy is geared to oil and other natural resources.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0621-02.htm

Economic Security: A National Security Folly? (8-1-01)
The Price of Oil?...War (1-8-03)
Madison’s Ghost on The Intoxicated Presidency and its Corporate Support Group
Boomtime for the Military-Industrial Complex : Arming for Armageddon (12-30-02)
The ex-presidents' club(10-31-01)
Is War Still a Racket? (1-9-03)
War Is A Racket By Major General Smedley Butler

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday April 1, 2001
The Observer
Global warming

The President Who Bought Power and Sold the World

George Bush's decision to ignore global warming and pull the plug on Kyoto is payback for the energy industries which backed him. The story behind the singular determination of Bush to fly in the face of world opinion, the sentiments of most Americans and even many in his own government reveals adherence to ideological rigor and a payment of debts to the business interests that helped him to the White House - above all, oil and coal. Oil runs through every sinew and vein of the Bush administration; rarely, if ever, has a Western government been so intimately entwined with a single industry.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,466615,00.html

Oil and the Bush cabinet (1-29-01)
They must be joking about energy (5-6-01)
Main Event: American Energy Policy (11-1-01)
Feeling OPEC's Pain (8-5-01)
The American Conservative: A Capitalist War? (12-16-02)
The Dinosaur War – To Protect Corporate Profits (10-11-02)
What Was Teapot Dome? (2-11-02)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World News

July 11, 2002

West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields

By Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson

The removal of President Saddam Hussein would open Iraqs rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil.

No other country offers such untapped oilfields whose exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western presence in Saudi Arabia.

After Kuwait's liberation by US-led forces in 1991, America monopolised the postwar deals, but the need to win international support for an invasion is unlikely to see a repeat.

Russia, in particular, and France and China all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have high hopes of prising promises of contracts in a liberated Iraq from a United States that may need their political support.

President Bush has used the War on Terror to press his case for drilling in a protected Arctic refuge, but predicted reserves in Alaska are dwarfed by the oilwells of the Gulf. Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that the issue for the US was as much the security of the Gulf as access to particular oilfields.

"You are looking down the line to a world in 2020 when reliance on Gulf oil will have more than doubled. The security of the Gulf is an absolutely critical issue."

Gerald Butt, Gulf editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, said: "The removal of Saddam is, in effect, the removal of the last threat to the free flow of oil from the Gulf as a whole."

Iraq has oil reserves of 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia, which has some 265 billion barrels. Iraqi reserves are seven times those of the combined UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. But the prize for oil companies could be even greater. Iraq estimates that its eventual reserves could be as high as 220billion barrels.

Three giant southern fields - Majnoon, West Qurna and Nahr Umar have the capacity to produce as much as Kuwait. The first two could each equal Qatar's production of 700,000 barrels a day. "There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Its the big prize," Mr Butt said.

Extraction costs in these giant onshore fields, where development has been held up by more than two decades of war and sanctions, would also be among the lowest in the world. Provided that the US can ensure stability in a post-Saddam Iraq, it would take five years, at most, to develop the oilfields and Iraq's prewar capacity of three million barrels a day could reach seven or eight million, industry experts said.

However, regime change in Baghdad will be of little value to international oil companies unless it is followed by a stable Iraq with a strong central government. Companies can't go in unless there is peace. To develop Majnoon, you need two to three billion dollars and you don't invest that kind of money without stability, one industry analyst said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-352935,00.html

Carve-up of oil riches begins (11-3-02)
Iraqi Oil Strategy Divides State, White House (12-24-02)
U.S. Studies International Law On Oil-Field Rights in Iraq War (1-30-03)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 2000

After Oil

By David Fleming

The only producers with an oil resource which may be capable of keeping oil flowing into the world market at a roughly constant level are the middle east Opec five--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. And even in these countries, the closer you look, the less they have to offer.

Most of Saudi Arabia's reserves of oil are held in one huge field, the Ghawar. It has been pumped since 1948 and, not surprisingly, it is showing signs of exhaustion with its southern end now flooding with water. Saudi Arabia can keep its production roughly constant for another seven to ten years before it too has used up half its total oil resource and rolls over towards depletion. Then it will turn to smaller fields, producing smaller amounts, followed by poor-quality fields with real problems, such as Manifa.

Things are not much better in the other Gulf states. Iran, which used to be the young giant of the oil business, could not now sustain a higher output for long, and there are suspicions that some of the production credited to Iran is piped over the border from Iraq. Kuwait and one of the emirates, Abu Dhabi, could increase production and may well do so, but their reserves are small, relative to world demand.

Only one country has the potential for a serious increase in output, on a scale which could make a difference. The bad news is: that country is Iraq. Iraq's oil geology is not fully explored, but there are some well-informed guesses. One estimate is that there are 110 billion barrels there--equal to more than three British North Seas, or more than one third of the total resource once possessed by Saudi Arabia. This oil could not be made immediately available, but it is on a scale to keep world oil production rising for a few more years. It lies, however, in a country which is armed to the teeth, consumed by loathing of the west, and just waiting for a US armed intervention to make its day. Iraq was prevented from selling off its oil during the 1990s, when prices were lower than they will ever be again; it will soon be well placed to apply its own sanctions to the rest of the world by fine-tuning its output and naming its price.

http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/after-oil-david-fleming.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 31, 2002

The Oil Reckoning

By Paul Rogers

To get an idea of the importance of Iraqi oil in the coming decades, look at it this way. Take the total known oil reserves for the Caspian Basin outside of Iran, then add the oil reserves of Siberia. Add to these the remaining North Sea oil reserves and then include the West Shetland fields. Finally, put in the entire oil reserves of the United States, including the Alaska fields that have yet to be developed.

If we put all of these together, we get fairly close to 10% of all the oil reserves in the world. Iraq alone has more than this, and adding the other Gulf States we get close to 70% of world reserves.

This gives us some sense of perspective but only in the form of a snapshot. What is much more significant is the nature of the long-term trends in reserves, production, and consumption. When we include this, we get a clear indication of the steadily increasing significance of Persian Gulf oil relative to every other part of the world. Thirty years ago, the United States was virtually self-sufficient in oil supplies but it now imports over 60% of its needs, with oil imports from the Middle East increasing steadily.

The recognition of this is nothing new--it was one of the deciding factors behind the development of the original Rapid Deployment Force nearly 25 years ago. Moreover, it was a situation that was clearly recognized by the Republicans who came to power with Ronald Reagan, 20 years before George W Bush, and was clearly demonstrated by one of the first pronouncements of the Reagan era.

http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0212oil_body.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 23, 2002

Bush's Master Oil Plan

Michael T. Klare

With so many new international crises erupting every day, it is hard to detect any clear forward direction to American U.S. foreign policy. At times, it appears that providing a response to the latest upheaval is about all that Washington can accomplish. But beneath the surface of day-to-day crisis management, one can see signs of an overarching plan for U.S. policy: a strategy of global oil acquisition.

In recent weeks, the Bush administration has taken bold steps to implement this strategy in several far-flung regions of the world. In the Caspian Sea basin -- said to harbor the second biggest reservoir of untapped petroleum after the Persian Gulf -- the United States is building new military bases and providing training to local defense forces. In Colombia, U.S.-equipped government forces will soon be guarding the Occidental Petroleum Company's Cano Limon oil pipeline. And in Venezuela -- America's third largest supplier of oil -- U.S. embassy personnel reportedly met with leaders of an abortive coup against President Hugo Chavez.

All of these developments are obviously tied to other foreign policy considerations besides oil. The United States clearly seeks to promote stability and fight terrorism in these and other areas of the world. But it is also true that the areas that are garnering the greatest degree of attention from Washington -- the Middle East, the Caspian Sea basin, and the Andean region -- are also areas that figure prominently in the administration's long-term energy strategy.

The aim of this strategy is simple: to procure as much of the world's oil for ravenous U.S. markets as possible.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12946

The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration's Motives by Michael T. Klare(1-16-03)
[Note: This is an excellent summary article worth reading in its entirety]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2002

Oil Moves the War Machine

by Michael T. Klare

Since its inception, the Bush Administration has launched two great foreign policy initiatives: a global war against terrorism, and a global campaign to expand American access to foreign oil. Originally, each possessed its own rationale and mode of operation. As time has passed, however, they have become increasingly intertwined, so that today the war on terrorism and the struggle for oil have become one vast enterprise.

Several factors are facilitating the merger of the anti-terror and oil-supply missions. The first is geography: Many of the world's largest reserves of oil are located in areas that are unstable or rent by internal divisions of one sort or another.

The second is growing U.S. dependency on imported oil. As domestic reserves are progressively depleted, the United States will become increasingly reliant on oil derived from sources located abroad. At the same time, world demand for oil, especially from the developing nations, will grow, the Cheney report notes, which could push prices higher. "Growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on global oil availability," it notes.

With the American public fixated on the threat of terrorism, however, the Administration is understandably reluctant to portray its foreign policy as related primarily to the protection of oil supplies. Thus the third reason for the merger of the war against terrorism and struggle for oil: to provide the White House with a convenient rationale for extending U.S. military involvement into areas that are of concern to Washington primarily because of their role in supplying energy to the United States.

For all of these reasons, the war against terrorism and the struggle for oil are likely to remain connected for the indefinite future. This will entail growing U.S. military involvement in the oil-supplying nations. At times, such involvement may be limited to indirect forms of assistance, such as arms transfers and training programs. At others, it will involve the deployment of significant numbers of U.S. combat troops.

The Bush Administration has a right and an obligation to take the necessary steps to protect the United States against further acts of terrorism. Such efforts have been given unequivocal support by the public and Congress. But such support does not extend to an open-ended campaign to procure additional oil from overseas suppliers and to protect these supplies from hostile forces.

Before committing additional military resources to such an effort, we should consider if America's energy requirements could be better provided through conservation and alternative energy systems, which would reduce the risk of U.S. involvement in an endless series of overseas conflicts.

http://www.theprogressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/siuhin_oil-war.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j113001.html
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/site/viewru.cfm?uc_full_date=20011012&uc_comic=ru&uc_daction=X

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 12, 2002
The New Statesman

America’s bid for global dominance

By John Pilger

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor”, described as “the opportunity of ages”. The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and “think-tanks” were established to avenge the American “defeat” in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a “peace dividend” following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush’s “thinkers” is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about “total war”, I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America’s “war on terror”. “No stages,” he said. “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan’s education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC’s seminal report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could “fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. This has happened. It said the United States should develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons and make “star wars” a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”, these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,” it says, “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-12-2002_pg4_11

The president's real goal in Iraq (9-29-02) [Read Jay Bookman's excellent, comprehensive report on the PNAC]
Iraq War Hawks Have Plans to Reshape Entire Mideast (9-10-02)
This war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney (1-18-03)
PBS: Frontline-The War Behind Closed Doors (2-20-03)
Enthusiastic IDF awaits war in Iraq (2-17-03)
The Case Against War (2-15-03)
Israel's 'amen corner' is cornered (2-19-03)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March/April 2003
Mother Jones

The Thirty-Year Itch

Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.


By Robert Dreyfuss

If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

The Defense Department likely has contingency plans to occupy Saudi Arabia, says Robert E. Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank whose advisers include Kissinger; former Defense Secretary and CIA director James Schlesinger; and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia," Ebel says, "if the ruling family is ousted, if they decide to shut off the oil supply, we have to go in."

Two years ago, Ebel, a former mid-level CIA official, oversaw a CSIS task force that included several members of Congress as well as representatives from industry including ExxonMobil, Arco, BP, Shell, Texaco, and the American Petroleum Institute. Its report, "The Geopolitics of Energy Into the 21st Century," concluded that the world will find itself dependent for many years on unstable oil-producing nations, around which conflicts and wars are bound to swirl. "Oil is high-profile stuff," Ebel says. "Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. It is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional energy supply and demand balances. Rather, it has been transformed into a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power."

As vital as the Persian Gulf is now, its strategic importance is likely to grow exponentially in the next 20 years. Nearly one out of every three barrels of oil reserves in the world lie under just two countries: Saudi Arabia (with 259 billion barrels of proven reserves) and Iraq (112 billion). Those figures may understate Iraq's largely unexplored reserves, which according to U.S. government estimates may hold as many as 432 billion barrels.

With supplies in many other regions, especially the United States and the North Sea, nearly exhausted, oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq is becoming ever more critical -- a fact duly noted in the administration's National Energy Policy, released in 2001 by a White House task force. By 2020, the Gulf will supply between 54 percent and 67 percent of the world's crude, the document said, making the region "vital to U.S. interests." According to G. Daniel Butler, an oil-markets analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Saudi Arabia's production capacity will rise from its current 9.4 million barrels a day to 22.1 million over the next 17 years. Iraq, which in 2002 produced a mere 2 million barrels a day, "could easily be a double-digit producer by 2020," says Butler.

[This long article, a step by step account of how the US has 'leaned' into the current invasion of the Middle East over the course of the past thirty years or so, is well worth reading in it's entirety.]

http://motherjones.org/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Will Be the Next Target of the Oil Coup?

Dale Allen Pfeiffer

FTW, December 18, 2001 -- The past year has seen events unprecedented in the history of this country, from the installment of George W. Bush as president due to an extremely controversial 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court to the horrific terrorist attacks of 9-11. These events seem unreal and beyond comprehension. Many people have been left wondering why the presidential coup and why the terrorist attacks.

Many people have assumed that the last presidential election simply resulted in a political squabble due to the close vote. A few have opined that this squabble resulted in a power grab by one segment of the elite in this country. As for the events of 9-11, the established line is that this was due to evil people who hate freedom and democracy. However, many people have sought to explain that these terrorists were bred by decades of imperialist intervention undertaken by this country in order to keep secure the privileged position of US corporations and the US public in general. There are a small few who have wondered whether the events of 9-11 were the work of Islamic terrorists at all, just as there are a few who believe that the Bush regime staged a coup in every sense of the word. The wisest and best informed say all of this is about oil.

The 2000 presidential election has been referred to as a coup, and there is good reason for this. Never mind the widespread corruption and voter fraud. Never mind the disenfranchisement of black voters and the outright destruction of untallied ballots in minority voting precincts. Never mind the manipulations of James Baker, Governor Jeb Bush and various other Florida officials. The Supreme Court decision was itself unheard of, and probably unconstitutional. The self-described job of the Supreme Court is to decide questions of constitutional law and set precedents. Yet in this one case and no other in the history of the US the Supreme Court stated that it was rendering a special decision which cannot be used as a precedent in any other case.

So we have a president put into office by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the popular vote. What about the background of this president and his cabinet? The Bush cabinet is a virtual who's who of oil, defense and pharmaceutical bigwigs. The Bush family is itself closely tied financially to the bin Ladens. Both families are involved in the Carlyle Group. Bush Sr. sits on the board of Carlyle, a 12 billion Equity company with oil holdings and defense contracts. Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton Oil. Colin Powell is a major stockholder in several defense contractors. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron. Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff is from General Motors. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. Dick Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has ties to the Russian mafia and is a board member of Carlyle. Robert Jordan, the Saudi ambassador, was a member of Baker Botts, a legal firm specializing in oil and defense (the Baker in Baker Botts is James Baker). Tony Principi, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, comes from Lockheed Martin. Gordan England, Secretary of the Navy, is tied to General Dynamics. James Roche, Secretary of the Air Force, is from Northrop Grumman. Gen. Thomas White, retired, Secretary of the Army, is from Enron Energy. Donald Evans, the Commerce Secretary, owns Colorado Oil Company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Exxon. And Mr. Carlucci, the Chief of Carlyle, sits on the Middle East Policy Council.

One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to declare an energy crisis and delineate a controversial set of measures for solving this problem. On the surface, the Bush energy package called for increased domestic production. This is the favored solution of certain mainstream, free-market economists, who believe that increased production is the answer to current energy woes while research and development of new technology will take care of the future. Most mainstream economists refuse to realize that hydrocarbons are the underpinning of our technological civilization, instead of just another commodity. And, of course, increasing production has great appeal to businesspeople whose prime concern is maximizing short-term profit.

Under the surface, however, the Bush energy package is a give away for the oil industry, and a strengthening of US commitment to support corporate oil interests. The energy package sought to give away drilling rights in the Alaskan National Wildlife Arctic Reserve (ANWAR) and other remaining wilderness areas, open up our continental shelves to full exploitation, role back environmental and health regulations, and subsidize the oil industry with major tax breaks. One controversial measure which received very little attention was an item allowing energy corporations to extract resources from public land without paying for the right to do so. The Bush energy plan was a giveaway for energy corporations. It met with stiff opposition in congress and certain prized measures such as drilling in ANWAR were defeated. Related to the energy package was President Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, which action was reviled around the world.

It is in the Middle East that the real grab for world power will be played out. According to Duncan and Youngquist’s model, by 2007 the Middle East will dominate the world in oil production. This will be the last region where oil production will peak, according to Duncan and Youngquist’s model, sometime around 2011. And the oil of the Middle East lies largely in the provinces of five countries: Iran, Iraq, The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

All but two of these countries are closely tied to the United States and are likely to be players in the oil coup. The exceptions are Iraq and Iran. Iraq’s ability to export oil has been severely restricted since the first Gulf War. Likewise, Iran faced stiff embargoes following the fall of the Shah in the 1970’s. However, in neither of these countries does the oil coup have clear control over oil resources. Likewise, both countries are targeted as terrorist states. Right now, Israel and powers in the United States are lobbying strongly to make Iraq the next target in the “War Against Terrorism.” Rumor has it that this war is slated to begin early in 2002. This author would suggest that, after finishing off Saddam Hussein, the oil coup will then set its sites on Iran. We can say with certainty that the oil coup will want to have both these countries firmly in control before the OPEC crossover event.

But how stable are the governments of the other three major Arab states? The Saudi royals sit very uneasily on their throne. The hundreds of princes which make up the house of Fahd are extremely unpopular due to their own corruption—both economic and moral. National Security Agency electronic intercepts demonstrate that the Saudi princes routinely pay protection money to Islamic extremists, including Hamas and Al Qa’ida. NSA and CIA analysts have noted that it would not take much for an Islamic fundamentalist coup to overthrow the royals. Likewise, a secret CIA study put together in the mid-1980s concludes that terrorists with only a handful of explosives could take the Saudi oil fields off line for two years.

The oil producing Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have all seen large population increases since they began pumping oil. In a couple of generations, they have gone from being simple nomadic peoples to sophisticated urbanites. All of these countries have highly developed welfare states financed by oil money. Unfortunately for them, the rate of population growth has exceeded their ability to financially support the population. It is for this reason that the Arab countries were exceeding their oil quotas throughout the late-1990s, in an effort to cover the expenses of their welfare systems. And let us not forget that these are all desert nations. By the year 2020, all of these countries will have passed peak oil production and be in decline. By that time, none of them will be able to support their populations.6 The result will be starvation, economic disaster and civil unrest. How will the oil coup hope to hold this ship together?

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex22007.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DSSi’s strategic scenario analysis regarding Al-Qaida’s endgame leads to the following conclusions about the real current events:

* The ‘network of networks’ known as Al-Qaida has successfully laid a trap for the United States. Al-Qaida retains the initiative and the U.S. is operating ‘inside the intentions and plans’ of Al-Qaida

* Al-Qaida cannot destroy the U.S. forces inside the U.S., nor can it convince the U.S. to leave the Middle East using terror attacks. The intention of the terror attacks is a provocation to force the U.S. to engage and deploy forces to the Middle East, where such forces could be destroyed

* Al-Qaida’s aims are to make the Middle East ‘ungovernable,’ gain control of the petroleum production system in the region in the attempt to force withdrawal of U.S. presence in the region, or destroy the regional petroleum production system

* Control or destruction of the petroleum production system in the Middle East and elsewhere would transform the political situation in the region, initiate a global depression, and drastically shift the geopolitical balance

* Destruction. An analysis of U.S. behavior of intervention and military operations leads one to believe that as long as the U.S. has real interests in a region they will find a way to be involved; conversely, if the U.S. has no real interests in a region (e.g. much of Africa), its involvement will be half-hearted at best. As long as ‘control’ of the petroleum production system remained possible to attempt to retake, the significance of oil to the global economy would continue to encourage the U.S. to so attempt. The only way to remove the U.S. from Saudi Arabia, from the Middle East, and from the world arena, as bin Laden has stated he would like to accomplish, would be through the destruction of the petroleum production system. Al-Qaida’s support and relationships with guerrilla and terrorist organizations around the world may give them the ‘reach’ necessary to launch additional attacks on other petroleum production systems as well (U.S. domestic, Central and South America). This could be accomplished in a number of ways,......

Download this complete PDF report here:
http://www.metatempo.com/publications.html

Pro-Qaeda Oil Workers a Sabotage Risk for Saudis (2-13-03)
In bin Laden's Mind, a Good Start on Goals (2-13-03)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 5, 2001

What bin Laden and Bush Don't Talk About: The Politics of Oil

Michael T. Klare

Osama bin Laden does not talk about oil when he calls for a holy war against the enemies of Islam. Neither does George Bush, when he calls for a global war against terrorism. Both major protagonists in the current conflict stress moral and religious themes in their public pronouncements, claiming that this is a struggle between good and evil. But both bin Laden and Bush are well aware that the conflict also represents a struggle for control over the greater Persian Gulf region -- the location of about two-thirds of the world's known petroleum reserves.

One can view the current conflict between the United States and Osama bin Laden's global terror network on a number of levels: as a struggle over the role of Islam in the modern world; as a fight between Islamic fundamentalists and less doctrinaire, Western-backed governments in the region; and as an inevitable consequence of America's continuing support for Israel. But however useful these strands of analysis, it is not possible to fully appreciate the origins and significance of the conflict without considering the historic role of oil politics.

It is from this cauldron of contending forces that Osama bin Laden's network has emerged. Once a privileged member of the Saudi elite, bin Laden has become its most dedicated opponent. (Fifteen of the 19 terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks were also recruited in Saudi Arabia.) Ultimately, bin Laden seeks to drive the United States out of the kingdom and replace the monarchy with a Taliban-like fundamentalist regime. And because he lacks the armies to accomplish this aim, he has relied on recurring acts of sabotage and terrorism.

It is against this backdrop that the events of Sept. 11 and thereafter must be viewed. Although Osama bin Laden is not directly concerned with the flow of oil from the Gulf and the Caspian Sea area, his determination to drive the United States out of the area and replace existing governments with militant Islamic regimes represents a direct threat to American oil interests in the region. Thus, in fighting Al Qaeda, the United States has two sets of objectives: first, to capture and punish those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and to prevent further acts of terrorism; and second, to consolidate American power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area and to ensure the continued flow of oil. And while the second set may get far less public attention than the first, this does not mean that it is any less important.

What are the implications of this for future U.S. policy? The American public rightfully wants to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice and his worldwide terror network eradicated. This must be the immediate goal of American foreign policy. But once this has been accomplished, the United States should reassess the risks and benefits of growing U.S. oil dependence from greater Gulf area, and consider whether it might be appropriate to, in time, reduce U.S. military presence there. Surely, the last thing we need is an endless series of wars over access to Persian Gulf oil.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11860
The Geopolitics of War (10-18-01)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hatred of the United States
is Rooted in Oil

by Mathew Ingram

Globe and Mail Update, September 14, 2001

Although the pieces of the puzzle haven’t all been put together yet, the early signs are that those responsible for the attacks in the U.S. are associated with militant Islamic leader Osama bin Laden. And what could possibly have sparked those horrific attacks? As with so many other aspects of U.S. foreign policy, much of the hatred that emanates from militant Islamic terrorist groups such as Mr. bin Laden’s can be traced back to a single thing: Oil — and more specifically, the U.S. government’s desire to maintain control over the vast quantities that exist in the Middle East (most of the world's reserves).

Mr. bin Laden, a Saudi-born businessman who left the construction business to become a financier of international Islamic terrorism, is only the latest in a series of Middle Eastern figures who have become public enemy number one as a result of U.S. oil policy. Until Mr. bin Laden came along, for example, the most hated man in the Middle East was Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq — who some military intelligence observers feel may be involved in assisting Mr. bin Laden with the war of terrorism against the U.S. Many political analysts believe that the war against Iraq was fought largely to ensure that the oil would continue to flow from Saudi Arabia.

During the Gulf War, the U.S. stationed troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi royal family — a move that Mr. bin Laden and other Islamic groups have said was an affront to Muslims, and one which many security experts warned against at the time, arguing that it would increase tension in the Middle East.  “A lot of people advised [President George W. Bush’s] father not to put U.S.  troops in Saudi Arabia — to put them ‘over the horizon’ rather than in the heartland of Islam,” said U.S. policy expert John Sigler, a professor of political science at Carleton University.

While the State Department argued that the troops should be located in some other area, Prof. Sigler said, the Pentagon decided that they needed to be on the ground in Saudi Arabia for reasons of “military efficiency.” Even after the Iraqi threat had eased, U.S. soldiers remained in what Mr. bin Laden’s group refers to as “the land of the two holy places” (Mecca and Medina). American officials said the troops needed to remain because they would protect the Saudi Arabian government of King Fahd from Iraqi attack — but Prof. Sigler said this was largely a fiction, presumably designed to justify keeping troops to protect Saudi oilfields.

Not only does the presence of non-Muslim soldiers inflame the religious passions of fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Mr. bin Laden’s, but their existence is also a regular reminder that the U.S. is primarily interested in the Middle East because of its oil supplies. Much of Mr. bin Laden’s anti-U.S. rhetoric — expressed in several rare interviews with Western reporters over the past few years — concerns the alleged “rape” and “plundering” of the Middle East by the United States, aimed at controlling the area’s oil for the benefit of the U.S.  and other Western nations.

This idea is intricately intertwined with America’s policy on Israel. Some Muslim groups believe that the U.S. is in league with Israel to take control of the Middle East — driven, they argue, by Israel’s desire to crush all Islamic nations, combined with the American desire to control the source of the vast majority of the world’s oil. Within Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, many critics of the monarchy see the U.S. as supporting a “puppet” government for its own purposes, in the same way it did in Iran.

The problem for the U.S. is that anything it does to try and influence the flow or supply of oil involves a large part of the Middle East, and impacts on nations that have an abiding hatred for the U.S. — including Iraq, Iran and Libya. And despite sources of oil such as Alberta’s tar sands, some forecasters expect the U.S. and the rest of the Western world are going to need even more supply from the Middle East in the future: A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the world will become increasingly dependent on the Middle East over the next 20 years.

The study said that oil-rich Persian Gulf nations will have to expand their oil production by almost 80 per cent over the next 20 years in order to keep up with demand, particularly demand from China and India. The potential for terrorism, supply interruptions and outright war will remain high, the study says — adding that getting more oil from Iraq will be “crucial” to meeting the world’s demands, since Iraq contains 11 per cent of the world’s oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia’s 25 per cent.

As long as the U.S. continues its growing demand for oil, in other words, it will be forced to deal with the troubled politics of the Middle East in one way or another, whether it wants to or not.

http://healthandenergy.com/hatred_of_u_s_rooted_in_oil.htm 

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement (23 February 1998)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the Oil

by Johnny Angel

Never mind the pundits, the root cause remains the same.

In the orgy of examination of who and what is to blame for the events of September 11, we must have heard every conceivable explanation. The American right, as exemplified by President Bush, Fox News and the opinion page of the The Wall Street Journal, blames envy of American values and success. The extreme right blames secular humanism, gay rights and the other bogeymen they love to flog. The center faults lax airport security and a general lack of preparedness, while the left, all but ignored by the corporate media, blames American imperialism and in some cases our unconditional support for Israel.

Yet for all the noise generated by partisans and centrists alike, no one is willing to accept the blatantly obvious, the real underlying factor behind America’s involvement in the byzantine labyrinth of Middle East politics. What could possibly motivate the propping up of repressive non-democracies like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, or murderous regimes like that of Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran? Or pouring billions into the coffers of Saddam Hussein in the ’80s, or even creating the monster that is possibly the mastermind of these attacks, Osama bin Laden, beneficiary of CIA lucre and training?

It’s the oil, stupid.

Once again, America’s twin addictions, that of its people to cheap gasoline and its corporations to billions of petro-dollars, has led us right into the proverbial pit. Having learned very little or forgotten a lot in the wake of the oil embargoes of the 1970s, America is as strung out on the fossil-fuel jones as any Bonnie Brae Street junkie is on Mexican tar heroin. Even though American dependency on oil from the Middle East has fallen to about 17 percent of national consumption, Saudi Arabia remains the cornerstone, producing 50 percent of the whole world’s supply. So in order to keep this economic balm flowing, to keep the status quo static and the balance sheets of the major oil companies brimming, we’ve installed our military as a kind of mega police force in the region. Our official reason for being there is to ensure “stability,” one of the great buzzwords in the history of business, but this is nothing more than spin — the military is in the Middle East to guarantee that whatever comes out of the ground is exploitable and controlled by American multinationals.

And it is the simple fact of the presence of American soldiers on the holy soil of Islam that has so enraged our new nemesis, bin Laden.

Speaking to British journalist Robert Fisk in 1996 Afghanistan, bin Laden made clear his agenda. “When the American troops entered Saudia Arabia [after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait], the land of the two holy places [Mecca and Medina], there was strong protest from the ulema [religious authorities] and from students of the Shariah law all over the country against the interference of American troops,” bin Laden told Fisk, who published the comments in The Nation in 1998. The Saudi leaders made a “big mistake,” bin Laden said, when they responded by suppressing the protests and cementing ties to the U.S. “After it had insulted and jailed the ulema . . . the Saudi regime lost its legitimacy,” bin Laden said. And so began his deadly fatwa against the United States.

Oil has been the prime mover behind any and every political decision in that region since the First World War, when trucks, tanks and planes replaced horses and camels. Once the internal-combustion engine became the technological centerpiece of the century, keeping it going by any means necessary became a most profitable business venture. And despite the myth that has been rammed down America’s psyche for eons, American business loathes competition and aims for monopoly. Sure, they’ll partner with the Saudi royal family (because the government that they dominate owns all of its oil), but in exchange, anyone in the region who actually believes in the rights of the people of that country to share in the wealth of their homeland is shut out. And forcefully, with the aid of the American military and CIA, as we saw in Iran and during the Gulf War.

This dusty, empty part of the world was basically nothing more than a bedouin crossroads for 1,300 years, between the end of the Crusades and the early 1900s. During the period when America endured revolution and a civil war, and Europe tore itself apart, the Middle East was downright peaceful. Tell me why the United States and Great Britain reflexively back the state of Israel in its battles with its neighbors. Were it not sitting strategically close to vast pools of viscous crude, no one would give a rat’s ass about either side.

It’s the meddling in the internal affairs of the indigenous people of the region to ensure that said oil stays in the hands of the privileged few that has led to an enraged underground movement of terrorists in these lands. And oil is all we’re there for — what else of value comes from that part of the world, what strategic value does it have otherwise?

That may seem as obvious as the nose on our collective face, but it’s something almost no one wants to acknowledge. Especially given the ties between the media and the oil companies: ABC is tied to Texaco, NBC to British Petroleum, Time Warner to Mobil Oil, as revealed in the marvelous media-watchdog flier Censored Alert in the summer of 2000. And now the oil industry is entrenched as America’s No. 1 player with Bush and Cheney, two oil men (one failed, one successful) in command.

Eliminate the oil, and the American presence ends in the area; the resentment aimed at our land and our people also ends. Out of sight, out of mind, remember? Never mind the bollocks about how the Arabs envy our wealth: I don’t see them terrorizing Monaco or flying jets into the side of the Big Ben. The simple fact is, our armies aggravate them as colonial enforcers. Much in the same way that our forefathers loathed Hessians in the American Revolution.

If anything, the leaders of the Middle East are terrified of our abandonment. Like savvy survivors, they play both sides at the same time. Just as an American corporation will donate money to Republicans and Democrats both, so these strongmen pay lip service to America while nodding, winking and (in the case of Yemen and allegedly some Saudi businessmen) donating money to terrorist cells on the side, just to be safe.

It’s our own greed and need for control that has led us into this petroleum quagmire. Ross Perot, hardly the voice of progressive politics, made the canny observation in the first presidential debate of 1992 that the Gulf War was fought solely for control of oil and nothing more. He made the further point that American blood wasn’t worth shedding over a product that Saddam would have been glad to sell us himself.

Too late for that sort of pragmatism. The war we’re about to wage will surely be protracted and costly, with profound repercussions, and all because we decided that dealing with our enslavement to gasoline via conservation, alternative energy sources and the like was just too inconvenient. Feel that way now?

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/44/cover-angel.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0410-10.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20011114gene1114p2.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/international/12LADE.html?todaysheadlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/business/14OILL.html?todaysheadlines
http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2D000094697nov28
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j113001.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Sunday November 18, 2001

Recognize the Link Between Oil, War
 
There is a direct, inescapable connection between our war on terrorism and our nation's dependence on the internal combustion engine.

If the United States did not need oil, it's a safe bet we would not be so heavily, and dangerously, engaged in the Middle East. Yet the U.S. Congress seems at great pains to ignore that costly connection.

If ever there were a moment to connect the dots and lay the foundation for a rational long-term energy policy that lessens our dependence on oil, it is now, when bombs are falling in Afghanistan and Americans are bracing for the arrival of body bags from a foreign killing field.

The United States long has equated energy security simply with feeding the rapacious internal combustion engine upon which our economy rests. That is politically, militarily and environmentally untenable for the future.

In the effort to assure access to oil, the United States has entered into unsavory alliances, most notably in the Middle East. Each day, for example, this country imports 700,000 barrels of oil from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. To get oil, we defile holy places in Saudi Arabia by stationing our troops in them, enraging the inhabitants.

This strategy has high financial, political and environmental costs. But they have been hidden from most Americans, who blithely tool along their highways burning gasoline that costs them a quarter of what consumers in other nations pay for it.

On Sept. 11, though, the real costs of our failed energy policy should have become more visible.

Afghanistan is helping to make clear how costly a subsidy we pay for an oil-dependent economy.

[Please read this excellent editorial in it's entirety]:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/47010_energyed.shtml

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Tuesday, August 20, 2002

Corporate Interest in Iraqi Oil

by Sean Gonsalves

I still hope against hope that "regime change" in Iraq can be brought about through non-violent means.

Of course, it may come down to war. And if it does, we should at least be telling ourselves the truth. Even my 12-year-old daughter can see through the simplistic good-versus-evil analysis. So let's stop beating around the Bush and at least have a candid discussion before we allow privileged men sitting in plush, air-conditioned offices to send other people's sons and daughters off to mortal combat.

Shouldn't we be having a vigorous debate about the oil politics fueling this conflict? After all, the five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council are all scrambling for economic control of Iraq's oil reserves.

Read the industry mags and you'll quickly learn that Iraq possesses the second largest oil reserves on the planet, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, or about 11 percent of the world total. Many experts believe that Iraq has more undiscovered reserves, which could double its total petrol production once vigorous prospecting resumes. That would put Iraq up there with Saudi Arabia as one of the world's most profitable oil sources, according to industry experts. Oil companies are drooling at the prospect. One industry insider called it "a boom waiting to happen."

A recent report assembled by political scientists and church officials points out: "U.S.-based Exxon-Mobil looms largest among the world's oil companies and, by some yardsticks, measures as the world's biggest company. The United States consequently ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the United Kingdom second and France trailing as a distant third. Considering that the United States and the United Kingdom act almost alone as (Iraq) sanctions advocates and enforcers, and that they are the headquarters of the world's four largest oil companies, we cannot ignore the possible relationship of (military) policy with this powerful corporate interest."

And let's not forget that U.S. and UK companies had a three-quarter share in Iraq's oil production before the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Co., when the Iraqi government began to make steps to gain greater control of its oil resources.

In a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr candidly remarked: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." He then voiced his support for the current sanctions regime.

Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the president's most influential national security adviser, was a board member of Chevron before going to work in the White House. Chevron even named one of its supertankers in her honor.

Now, anyone acquainted with the history of Middle East oil politics knows that U.S. policy-makers' interest in dominating the world oil industry goes back to when Rice was a mere twinkle in her father's eye.

But given all these corporate scandals and the close ties that the Bush administration has with big oil, don't you think we owe it to ourselves, and especially to the young men and women in our armed services, to thoroughly investigate this stuff?

To date, Congress and the "liberal" media have, unfortunately, generated more heat than light on this story behind the story.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/83314_sean20.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-01.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday August 11, 2002
The Observer

West's greed for oil fuels Saddam fever

Anthony Sampson analyses the roots of America's fear of the Iraqi dictator,and warns that toppling him might cause less stability and more insecurity

Is the projected war against Iraq really turning into an oil war, aimed at safeguarding Western energy supplies as much as toppling a dangerous dictator and source of terrorism? Of course no one can doubt the genuine American hatred of Saddam Hussein, but recent developments in Washington suggest oil may loom larger than democracy or human rights in American calculations.

The alarmist briefing to the Pentagon by the Rand Corporation, leaked last week, talked about Saudi Arabia as 'the kernel of evil' and proposed that Washington should have a showdown with its former ally, if necessary seizing its oilfields which have been crucial to America's energy.

And the more anxious oil companies become about the stability of Saudi Arabia, the more they become interested in gaining access to Iraq, site of the world's second biggest oil reserves, which are denied to them. Vice-President Dick Cheney, who has had his own commercial interests in the Middle East, baldly described his objection to Saddam in California last week: 'He sits on top of 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves. He has enormous wealth being generated by that. And left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not too distant future he will acquire nuclear weapons.'

If Saddam were toppled, the Western oil companies led by Exxon expect to have much readier access to those oil reserves, making them less dependent on Saudi oilfields and the future of the Saudi royal family. The US President and Vice-President, both oilmen, cannot be unaware of those interests.

Of course Western policies towards Iraq have always been deeply influenced by the need for its oil, though they tried to be discreet about it. The nation of Iraq was invented in 1920, after the First World War. The allies had 'floated to victory on a sea of oil' (as the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon put it), but they preferred to conceal their dependence on it: 'When I want oil,' said Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, 'I go to my grocer.'

But both Clemenceau and Curzon, while they talked about Arab interests and self-determination, knew that what really mattered in Iraq was the oil that was emerging in the North; and the British and French succeeded in controlling the precious oilfields at Mosul.

But America and continental Europe still depend on uncertain developing countries, mostly Muslim, for much of their energy, and in times of crisis the concern about oil supplies returns. Western oil interests closely influence military and diplomatic policies, and it is no accident that while American companies are competing for access to oil in Central Asia, the US is building up military bases across the region.

In this security context the prospect of a 'terror network' controlling Saudi Arabian oil, which last week's briefing to the Pentagon conjured up, presents the ultimate night mare: a puritanical Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps in other Gulf states, would be prepared to defy the marketplace, with much less need to sell their oil than corrupt monarchies or sheikhdoms. Bin Laden, himself a Saudi, made no secret of his overriding ambition to rid his country of corrupt rulers and return to its austere Islamist roots.

In this scenario Americans would be more determined to get access to oil in Iraq, and the demands to topple Saddam would be reinforced.

The crucial question remains: would toppling Saddam safeguard Iraq's oil for the West? After all, both previous American Presidents - Clinton and George Bush Snr - were persuaded not to overthrow Saddam, because the alternative could well be a more dangerous power vacuum. That danger remains. If Iraq were to split into three parts, as many expect, the new oil regions in the South might be become still less reliable, in a region dominated by Shia Muslims who have their own links with the Shia in Iran. And a destabilised Saudi Arabia could make a power vacuum still more dangerous.

The history of oil wars is not encouraging, and oil companies are not necessarily the best judges of national interests. The Anglo-American coup in Iran in 1953, which toppled the radical Mossadeq and brought back the Shah, enabled Western companies to regain control of Iranian oil: but the Iranian people never forgave the intervention, and took their revenge on the Shah in 1979.

The belief that invading Iraq will produce a more stable Middle East, and give the West easy access to its oil wealth, is dangerously simplistic. Westerners live in a world where most of their oil comes from Islam, and their only long-term security in energy depends on accommodating Muslims.

· Anthony Sampson is the author of 'The Seven Sisters', about oil companies and the Middle East.

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,772578,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans [Afganistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, etc.], astride the inevitably emerging [resource] transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the stand point of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also Signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasion Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of gas and oil reserves is located in the region to important minerals, including gold.

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new resources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.

"Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, and rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries."

The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997, (p. 124-5).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 2003
Muse Letter #132

The US and Eurasia: End Game for the Industrial Era?

by Richard Heinberg

With the dawn of the 21st century the world has entered a new stage of geopolitical struggle. The first half of the 20th century can be understood as one long war between Britain (and shifting allies) and Germany (and shifting allies) for European supremacy. The second half of the century was dominated by a Cold War between the US, which emerged as the world's foremost industrial-military power following World War II, and the Soviet Union and its bloc of protectorates. The US wars in Afghanistan (in 2001-2002) and Iraq (which, counting economic sanctions and periodic bombings, has continued from 1990 to the present) have ushered in the latest stage, which promises to be the final geopolitical struggle of the industrial period - a struggle for the control of Eurasia and its energy resources.

Even in the best case, petroleum resources are limited and, as they gradually run out over the next few decades, will be unable to support the further industrialization of China or the maintenance of industrial infrastructure in Europe, Russia, Japan, Korea, or the US.

Who will rule Eurasia? In the end, no single power will be capable of doing so, because the energy-resource base will be insufficient to support a continent-wide system of transportation, communication, and control. Thus Russian geopolitical fantasies are as vain as those of the US. For the next half-century there will be just enough fossil energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime.

The next century will see the end of global geopolitics, one way or another. If our descendants are fortunate, the ultimate outcome will be a world of modest, bioregionally organized communities living on received solar energy. Local rivalries will continue, as they have throughout human history, but never again will the hubris of geopolitical strategists threaten billions with extinction.

That's if all goes well and everyone acts rationally.

http://www.museletter.com/archive/132.html

[These are the first and the last few paragraphs in a much longer article.....interesting reading in it's entirety]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Asia Times

October 6, 2001

The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns

By Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region's abundant petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts.

"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analyst and former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order in Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin Laden.

Where the "great game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines to the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia. According to testimony before the US House of Representatives in March 1999 by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan together have 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The same countries also have proven gas deposits totaling not less than nine trillion cubic meters. Another study by the Institute for Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at around US$3 trillion at last year's prices.

Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting Central Asia to international markets, but the country itself has significant oil and gas deposits.

According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over who the beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern Alliance, the Taliban, the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of these would benefit at all. But the immediate reason for UNOCAL's withdrawal was undoubtedly the US cruise missile attacks on Osama bin Laden's terrorism training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998, done in retaliation for the bombing of its embassies in Africa. UNOCAL then stated that the project would have to wait until Afghanistan achieved the "peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international agencies and a government that is recognized by the United States and the United Nations".

The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George W Bush is building now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making UNOCAL's wish come true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it has the potential of "reconfiguring substantially the energy scenarios for the 21st century".

http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html

The God of Fossil Fuels (10-10-01)
End Games (10-26-01)
The Great Game Continues (6-5-02)
National Security Directive 54 (1-15-91)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on Thursday, August 10, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune

Cheney's Black Gold:
Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy

by Marjorie Cohn

What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush's secretary of defense, Cheney was chief prosecutor of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the bombing of Iraq--which continues to this day--was primarily aimed at keeping the Persian Gulf safe for U.S. oil interests. Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources.

Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

But Caspian oil presents formidable obstacles. Landlocked between Russia, Iran and a group of former Soviet republics, the Caspian's "black gold" raises a transportation dilemma. Russia wants Caspian oil to run through its territory to the Black Sea. The United States, however, favors pipelines through its ally, Turkey.

Although the cheapest route would traverse Iran to the Persian Gulf, U.S. sanctions against Iran block this alternative. Cheney has lobbied long and hard, as recently as June, for the lifting of those sanctions, to lubricate the Iran-Caspian connection. This is consistent with his position, described in a 1997 article in The Oil and Gas Journal, that oil and gas companies must do business in countries with policies unpalatable to the U.S.

Cheney also favors the repeal of section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, which severely restricts U.S. aid to Azerbaijan because of its ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh, a mountainous enclave in Azerbaijan. Why would Cheney choose to ignore Azerbaijan's human-rights violations? Because Azerbaijan, key to the richest Caspian oil deposits, is, according to the Bulletin of