Home

Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, April 13, 2005

Choice Quotes from Profound Quotes, so relevant to today

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him.
Why is he there?
And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this:

Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God gave the savior to the German people.
We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.

Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.
On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side:

Aristotle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator.

George W. Bush, 18 December 2000

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me;

George W. Bush, 12 December 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Michael Klare, for many years, an internationally recognised specialist in Oil politics and anti-war issues has written the following first-rate paper on US reasons for planning a war against Iran. It's oil again. He, UN WMD inspector Scott Ritter, and others have predicted the US will begin the war in June 2005 unless people stop them. That's why I have circulated this email as widely as possible, hoping that people will act on it and also forward it to others. For many reasons a US-led war with Iran could have even worse, and far wider consequences than the US war on Iraq. Russia, a nuclear power, is deeply involved and has security understandings with Iran. China, also a nuclear power, and Japan, both have deep economic oil-related relations with Iran. These economic powerhouses may well resist US efforts for a 'regime change' which places Iranian oil, like Iraq oil, under US domination. If the US controlled Middle East oil, the opportunities for US price fixing and high profits, cronyism, favouritism to compliant nations and denial to others, and a continuing Bush dynasty, would be enormous.

However to be an effective deterrent to the Bush administration, the awareness and resistance to the US plan must be very widespread and deep, among both the publics and concerned governments.

Protests and awareness of the issues after the US begins the war are very welcome, but unlikely to be effective, or as effective, in halting the war and its momentum. Massive public protests against the US-led war on Iraq in 2003, were virtually ignored and sneered at by the Bush neocon administration and UK and Australian allies. But many 'coalition of the willing' nations have pulled out of the US-led war - the latest being Italy, due mainly to public pressure. The leading war administrations had absolutely no hesitation in backing an illegal, pre-emptive, colonial-type war against Iraq, with no justification whatsoever, accept the litany of lies they invented. The US and UK are on record as even threatening to use their nuclear weapons if Iraq used it's non-existent WMD. We can expect the same deceptions in their planned war against Iran - if their publics allow them to do it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran

By Michael T. Klare, ICH, April 11, 2005

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation.

Before proceeding further, let me state for the record that I do not claim oil is the sole driving force behind the Bush administration's apparent determination to destroy Iranian military capabilities. No doubt there are many national security professionals in Washington who are truly worried about Iran's nuclear program, just as there were many professionals who were genuinely worried about Iraqi weapons capabilities. I respect this. But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors -- again including oil -- are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran.  

Just exactly how much weight the oil factor carries in the administration's decision-making is not something that we can determine with absolute assurance at this time, but given the importance energy has played in the careers and thinking of various high officials of this administration, and given Iran's immense resources, it would be ludicrous not to take the oil factor into account -- and yet you can rest assured that, as relations with Iran worsen, American media reports and analysis of the situation will generally steer a course well clear of the subject (as they did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq).

Continue....

Also see tomdispatch.com for detailed information and more links relevant to this topic.