It is not about terror, it is about oil & world domination After the events of September 11th in New York the US government was heading towards an unilateral and unprovoked attack against Iraq. This attack has now become reality. This is done under the umbrella of "the war on terror". Elsewhere on this site I already commented on this so called war on terrorism. Also the talk of mr. G.W. Bush on an axis of evil makes no sense. The question arises: Are we dealing with a bunch of idiots? Oh no, definitely not! The real political agenda is not very open, but there are quite some publications around (in newspapers and on the internet) which show a picture which makes much more sense. Let me first introduce some people who are now very influential in Washington government. These are the names to watch out for when reading the newspapers. Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon, John Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department, many of them are involved in far-right, defense-oriented think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Another one, with a long standing record as leading hawk, is Richard Perle, leading Rand Corp which is an advisory group to the Pentagon. Richard Perle was advisor of the first Reagan administrations when the USA initially put itself on a collision course with the former Soviet Union. He was one of the proponents of keeping the option of a war against the Soviet Union open - including the use of nuclear weapons. Among progressive Americans Richard Perle earned himself the nickname "Prince of Darkness". They all speak of "a regime change" in Bagdad. But they also only see this as a first step. The goal isn't a new regime in Iraq, the goal is "a new Middle East". Vice President Cheney revealed some of this way of thinking in a speech in August when he made the administration's case for a regime change. He argued Hussein's overthrow would ''bring about a number of benefits to the region'' and enhance US ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. ''When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace,'' he told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This way of thinking is dismissed by more moderate conservatives, but another approach advocated is "sending a message to the rest of the region, making clear the US is prepared to unilaterally deploy its military power to achieve its goals, objectives, and values". A pro-US Iraq would lead to a reassessment of the US-Saudi alliance, which dates to World War II but has become strained since September 11th attacks, and the worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A "friendly" Iraq - home to the world's second-largest oil reserves - would provide an alternative to Saudi Arabia for basing US troops. Its oil reserves would make Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, less important in setting prices. In general, others contend, a US-allied Iraq could work to diminish the influence of OPEC, long dominated by Saudi Arabia, over oil supplies and prices. In the short and middle term that may be true - in the longer run it very probably isn't. It will only lead to a more wasteful energy policy by the US when considering the use of fossile fuels when the policy pointed out above would be implemented (assuming no complications - but I come to that later). The impact of an inevitable price explosion of oil will be postponed - and worsened. Others espousing the vision see potential changes in Syria and Iran, as well. The fallout from an attack on Iraq could bring to a head the longstanding power struggle in Iran between conservatives in the clerical leadership and reformers grouped around President Mohammad Khatami. However: It may as well severely backfire - definitely in Iran. The position of the reformers was severely weakened in Iran when President Bush held his "Axis of evil speech". The retorics of anti democratic right wing "partriotism" when "the nation is at war" works in Iran in the same way that it seems to work in the US. A powerful corollary of the strategy is that a pro-US Iraq would make the region safer for Israel and, indeed, its staunchest proponents are ardent supporters of the Israeli right-wing (mr. Netanyahu is a notable example). Administration officials, meanwhile, have increasingly argued that the onset of an Iraq allied to the US would give the administration more sway in bringing about a settlement to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, though Cheney and others have offered few details on precisely how. If we see the present policy by mr. Sharon c.s., who want to prevent the formation of a Pelestinian state, this scenario - if it materialises - would very probably end up in a permanent subjugation of the Palestinian population. The Palestinians would find themselves in a similar position as the black people in South Africa under the rule of Apartheid. In its broadest terms, the advocates argue that a democratic Iraq would unleash similar change elsewhere in the Arab world - an argument resonant among Bush administration officials who have increasingly called for change in a region where Western-style democracy is virtually nonexistent. What about mr. Mossadegh in Iran in 1953? He was elected by means of democratic elections, but was overthrown by a CIA supported coup which brought the Shah in power - not so democratic. We now know how it all ended up: The US got ayatollah's instead in 1979 ... However, installing a democracy in Iraq, much less the rest of the Middle East, would be extraordinarily difficult, if not out of the question. Change in Iraq is more akin to building a wall brick by brick and will require the support of allies. Do the Americans want to play the role of a - sort of - colonizer in Iraq for at least a decade? Secondly: One may say that the argument one could be starting a democratic wave in Iraq is pure blowing smoke. There are 22 Arab governments and only few of them (e.g. Marocco) have made any progress towards democracy. One doesn't go from an authoritarian dictatorship to a democracy overnight, not even quickly. ––––––––––– Some further comment So far some stuff (+ comments by me in italics) I drew from various sources (newspapers + the internet) What could an unprovoked attack at Iraq cause? Well, probably many will flip out, starting with the Saudis. It will send shock waves throughout the Arab world, and very probably even farther into the entire islamic world. This in spite of the fact that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a secular dictatorship (of a very brutal nature). Mr. G.W. Bush, do you racall that Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussein "a bad muslim", which is, in his way of thinking, equal to "an infidel"? Are they intimate allies? I don't think so. They may have supported each other on an irregular basis - the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend, just like the US supported all kinds of scum over the years when they deemed it useful ... Arguments like "Iraq has the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb" are rubbish. Give me the means and I can do it too when putting myself in the shoes of a fanatic (although it will be a quite primitive £ 1 kiloton TNT equivalent weapon). Any competent physician can. It is (much!) easier than making a color TV. Secondly: The genie of Islamic Fundamentalism was let out of the bottle in Afghanistan in the late 70-ties (Think of mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski c.s., who were the architects of this policy.). Up to then it was a rather insignificant force, but in the cold war it was used for the political ends of the government of the US. With help of the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence and the CIA, and the financial support from certain circles in Saudi Arabia it was made very powerful. So powerful that it was able to hijack an entire country: Afghanistan. And it will be this force of Islamic Fundamentalism which will gain more support in case of an attack against Iraq. Their bases in Afghanistan were dismantled, but much of their network organisations are still intact. The CIA very probably has a very limited knowledge on these networks. Their counter intelligence isn't very good. See the following example: Mr. J.F. Kennedy was (probably) shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Charles de Gaulle (who was confronted with l'Organisation de l'Armée Secret, the OAS, a whole regiment of Lee Harvey Oswalds) died in his bed as a very old man. (On the other hand, the ability of the CIA to subvert and overthrow democratic governments - see the example of mr. Mossadegh - is absolutely second to none.) And coming back to weapons of mass destruction: What do the Pakistani call their nuclear weaponry? The Islamic bomb ... Can we "go to bed with no worries", when it is widely known that the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence enabled the Taliban to seize power in Afghanistan and in addition to that supported training camps for Islamic extremists - including those used by mr. Osama Bin Ladens' Al Qaida network? (When the USA bombed a few of these camps in 1998 - using cruise missiles - they missed Osama Bin Laden but killed scores of Pakistani, who were being trained for "missions" in Kashmir.) How sure can we be that one (or more ...) of those weapons won't end up in the hands of (religious) fanatics? No doubt an attack on Iraq will mean more - very dangerous and uncontrollable - genies being let out of many more bottles. It will degrade the authority of the UN. It will mean a setback for international law. What, if a country doesn't like the composition of the government of another country and it has the means "to do something about it" (the US has ...)? Well, just send in "sergeant Bash and his men" ... It is a recipe for disaster.