Why the United States invaded Iraq, and now is thinking about invading Iran

Why the United States invaded Iraq, and now is thinking about invading
Iran
19.05.2006 Source: URL:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/80600-iran-0

On April 28th, IAEA released its report on Iran. IAEA reported that:
“the Agency cannot make a judgment about, or reach a conclusion on,
future compliance or intentions.” The report came as no surprise to
those who have been following the ongoing dispute between Iran, United
States and the IAEA.

The United States, for quite some time now, has been accusing Iran of
trying to develop Nuclear weapons and Iran has been insisting that its
intentions are peaceful and that it is only interested in peaceful use
of the Nuclear energy. Iran, to allay the international community’s
fear, froze its enrichment program and started a series of negotiations
with U.K., Germany, and France. However, without the United States
these negotiations were not going to produce any results, since it was
only the United States that could address the Iranian’s national
security concerns. Iranian seeing themselves surrounded by American
forces wanted a security guarantee that United States would not invade
Iran, something that United States was not prepared to give. So the
negotiations with the European three failed and Iran resumed its
enrichment program. Iran was threatened with Security Council and even
invasion without any effect. Now once again there is talk of Security
Council resolution under article 7 and continuous threats of invasion.
There have even been talks of tactical nuclear strike on suspected
Iranian nuclear facilities.

All these events are reminiscent of the negotiations and threats
preceding the invasion of Iraq. The unfolding events are so similar
that makes one wonder if the Iraq scenario is not being used as a
template for Iran. And with what has come to light since the Iraq
invasion, we have to assume that like Iraq, the decision to invade Iran
has already been taken, and that the E.U. Three negotiations and IAEA
are being used to prepare the public for that event. There are already
reports of increased U.S. provocations along Iranian borders such as
flying unmanned surveillance flight over Iran, and insertion of
commandos into Iran for intelligence gathering and other activities.
The talk of invasion is also accompanied with war games. For example on
April 14th, ‘USA Today’ reported that “Amid rising tensions
between the United States and Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear
program, the Pentagon is planning a war game in July so officials can
explore options for a crisis involving Iran.”

But this war game is not the first of its kind. According to William M.
Arkin of Washington Post, “In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on
the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an
analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT,
for "theatre Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a
Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force.
U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the
same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a
global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass
destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for
"major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm
now exists in draft form.”

But why did United States attack Iraq and why is she so keen on
attacking Iran now? We now know that from the beginning, this
administration was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. Washington
has, over time, given a number of different reasons for invading Iraq:
starting with Iraq’s developing Nuclear weapons, to war on terror, to
spreading democracy in the Middle East. All these reasons have proven
to be false. Iraq did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD); and did not have any link to Al Qaeda. And instead of democracy,
Iraqis have had to endure Abu Gharib, car bombs, shortage of basic
services such as electricity, clean water, and health care. None of the
ministries are functioning properly and in addition Iraq has to deal
with half a million displaced people. There is also talk of
partitioning of Iraq. On top of all this, the Iraqis now face a
possible bloody civil war.

After spending over 320 Billion dollars for Iraq war (officially so
far) and with no end in sight, why is this administration insisting in
starting another catastrophic war in the Middle East?

There have been a number of theories put forward by various groups and
individuals. These theories include: crusade against Islam, control of
oil reserve, checking the resurgence of Russia and rise of China, and
furthering the interests of Israel.

The answer probably contains some of all of the above. However two
theories stand out as more plausible.

Fight for oil reserves

The profits of five oil companies combined (American: ExxonMobil,
Chevron, and Conoco, British: Shell and British Petroleum) in 2005 was
111 billion dollars. And these profits are about to go through the
roof. The reason? Production can not keep-up with demand, and even if
it could, there isn’t enough oil to satisfy all, at present prices.
Oil companies’ valuations are based on those companies’ access to
oil reserves. Iraq and Iran combined have over 20% of the world’s
total proven oil reserves. Imagine what having access to those reserves
will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention
their profits.

There is also the matter of consumption. United States consumes fully
25 percent of the world oil supplies. China and India are growing
rapidly and their economies consume more and more oil. China currently
consumes 8.2 percent of the world’s oil production. Soon it will
increase to 10 or even 14 percent. Where is that oil going to come
from? Is United States willing to reduce its share for China? It is
highly improbable.

Recently, President Bush held a television conference where he assured
the public that Americans’ dependence on Oil soon would be over. He
spoke of great new technologies and fuel sources that were just around
the corner. What he forgot to mention was that there are 600 million
cars in the world today that run on petrol, and it is estimated that if
the present trend continues, by 2030, the number of cars in the world
will reach 1.2 billion.

Just to change the engines of the existing 600 million cars will take
years, not to mention all the petrol stations and the support
facilities that have to be modified for this to work. There is also
more in a barrel of oil than petrol for our cars. We need such oil
derivatives as jet fuel, Kerosene, lubricants, feedstock, asphalt,
etc., for our industries to function.

Currently over 60% of the world’s oil reserves are in Middle East.
Four countries in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, have
over half of the world’s proven oil reserves.

If we keep the world’s oil consumption at its current level then the
Middle East can theoretically supply the world with oil, at its current
production rate, for another 80 years.

But the fact is that in 15 years the North American and Asia Pacific
oil reserves will be depleted. This will represent a marked reduction
in oil supplies world wide. In other words within 15 years if we do not
increase oil production drastically in the Middle East and elsewhere,
world will face tremendous oil shortages. Increasing oil production is
not that easy either. Each Oil field has an optimum production rate. If
one tries to go beyond that rate and tries to sustain high production
rate, one damages the oil field and thereby substantially reducing the
amount of recoverable oil. This problem is well documented by the oil
industry.

But what about the new oil discoveries? Well there have been very
little new discoveries; the future doesn’t seem that bright either.
According to Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) analysis of
the long term world oil supply we can expect to discover only 10% more
oil in the future. Even this 10% is disputed. The Association for the
Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) which closely follows the development
in the oil industry, Foundation of Economic Sustainability (FEASTA),
and others see an alarming trend in the future oil discovery and
production.

If one looks at the amount of oil discovered in the years from 1930 to
the present one sees a clear downward trend in new discoveries; this in
spite of using more money and better technologies.

In March 2005, HIS energy (an international oil consultancy firm) did a
comprehensive analysis of the world oil supply and demand and reached
the following conclusion: that even if one includes Natural Gas
production and all other liquid fuels in our total available supplies,
there will be a shortage anytime from 2011 to 2020.

Israel

There is no doubt that Israel has a powerful lobby in the United
States. There are currently over 50 Jewish organisations that directly
or indirectly lobby for Israel. The Israeli influence is well known,
but few are willing to openly talk about it, especially in the United
States and Europe. The Israeli dimension is particularly difficult to
mention, for if one dares to state the obvious, one is branded as
anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser. The Jewish lobby also can make
life very unpleasant for those who dare to mention the extent of its
influence in U.S. and other countries. There are still a few brave
soles such as John Mearsheimer (Professor of Political Science and the
co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the
University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Belfer Professor of
International Relations and Academic Dean of Harvard University) in the
U.S. that are willing to speak-out. In March 2006, they wrote an
article titled “the Israel Lobby” in which they question the United
States policies in the Middle East. Here is a section of their article:

“Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year,
roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a
year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since
Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income
roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly instalments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year
and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for
military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel
is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise
its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have
to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually
impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US
opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the
US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons
systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk
helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to
intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to
Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

The Israel Connection

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are not anti-Semites nor are they
uninformed individuals. What they are saying is that United States’
Middle Eastern policy is in the interest of Israel and
counterproductive for the United States.

We now know that as soon as the Bush administration came to power, it
started looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. It used every possible
propaganda tool under the sun to get the UN to sanction the invasion of
Iraq, and when it didn’t succeed, it went ahead and invaded Iraq
anyway. The people in U.S. pushing for an invasion, the so called
Neo-Cons were at the forefront of disseminating misinformation in
anyway they could. But to understand part of their agenda we have to go
back to 1996.

In 1996 the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu
commissioned a study group called ”Study Group on a New Israeli
Strategy Toward 2000" to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming
decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’
which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas
Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created
the Israel’s strategy paper titled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm”.

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu
and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented bellow:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in
Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.
Peace depends on the character and behaviour of our foes. We live in a
dangerous neighbourhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries.
Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state
and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not
secure "peace now." Our claim to the land - to which we have clung for
hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own
power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only
the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in
their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for
the future.

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and
one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the
strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah,
Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon,
including by:

- striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in
Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

- paralleling Syria’s behaviour by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.

- striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break
from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of
strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including
upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defence into all
Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive
grip on Palestinian society.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and
moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to
contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction
program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means
of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's
regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the
Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to
which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the
Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently
signalled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving
Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to
remove Saddam.

It is interesting to note that many of the co-authors of this strategy
paper are Jewish Americans and not Israelis. Below you will find a very
short description of a few co-authors.

Richard Perle has served in important government posts under various
administrations. He was Secretary of Defence under Reagan
administration and Chairman of the Defence policy Advisory Committee
(2001-2003) under Bush Administration. He is also the signatory of
Project for the New American Century, a think-tank institute and one of
the main organisations pushing for invasion of Iran. Perle is currently
a resident fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. He sits also on the board of
advisors of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Douglas Faith served at Defense Department as Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy, under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Feith had
previously served in the Reagan administration, starting off as Middle
East specialist at the National Security Council (1981-82) and then
transferring to the Defense Department where he spent two years as
staff lawyer for Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle. He is the
director of Foundation for Jewish Studies, and former advisor to Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

David Wurmser, *** Cheney's Middle East adviser, was the Special
Adviser to Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security (2001-2003). He is also member of Board of Directors of U.S.
Committee for a Free Lebanon.

One can produce a very long list of influential people in United States
(e.g., Paul Wolfowitz -current World Bank President and Undersecretary
of Defence for Policy from1989-93) that work very hard to safeguard
Israel’s interests.

To be continued

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway and is currently writing a book about
the reasons behind the United States involvement in Iraq and Iran.
He's a former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway. He
can be contacted at: bakhtiarspace-articles@xxxxxxxx

Discuss this article on Pravda.Ru English Forum

© 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in
whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions
and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view
of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

[LiveInternet: показано число просмотров и
посетителей за 24 часа]

Rambler's Top100

.