The REAL Reason We're in Iraq

is written about at length here. Within this region (the Middle East) are oilfields that hold approximately 70 percent of the world's proven reserves of crude oil and gas fields that hold about 40 percent of the global natural gas reserves. Any group, nation or coalition of nations able to dominate this region would hold the keys to domination of a world economy dependent on these fuels. Strategically, the United States cannot allow such a domination to occur. This is what is at stake in the region, and all the concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan must take a back seat to this larger consideration. This argument centers around the assumption that the loss of control of these resources would change the American way of life so fundamentally, that we are authorized to invade, occupy, and do anything else that is necessary to secure use of the natural resources. This is a contestable position, as evidenced by the fact that is has never been used to explain our reasons for being in the Middle East. Since everyone knows that most Americans will not accept a war based on economics, the war is instead explained in terms of "freedom", "democracy", and "good and evil". Whether or not the economic argument is a viable one is reserved for discussion among the intellectual elite, and never sees the light of public analysis. The essay above cites 3 "threats" to US domination of the natural resources in the Middle East: Currently, there are three potential threats to domination of the SEE: A pan-Islamic coalition of states that rises in a new caliphate under the banner of al Qaeda. A hegemonic Iran dominating the Persian Gulf and southern Caspian. A revived, imperialist Russia or a Russo-Sino coalition. This list is a cheat sheet to understanding US military intervention in the region. 1. Destroy any Islamic coalition that may be created (Al Qaeda or any other). This has been done before, as I noted in this post, where I said: ..In the same time period, secular Arab nationalism was developing in the Middle east region, centred in Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nasser. This movement threatened to elevate the needs of the people above our economic interests, so obviously this democratic, grass-roots populism could not be allowed (a similar tale can be told regarding Communism in the Cold War). This problem was neatly eliminated for is in 1967, however, when the Israeli military destroyed Egyptian secular nationalism, effectively ending the "threat" to American economic interests. In 1967, we funded the destruction of Arab nationalism, because any coalition of Arab states may be a threat to our access to oil reserves. OPEC is only allowed to exist, presumably, because our friend Saudi Arabia is a charter member of the organization, and the $7 trillion dollars they have invested in our economy is considered vitally important. 2. Do not allow Iran to dominate the region. We have already seen great pressure to "deal" with Iran. In fact, since the Iranian people liberated themselves from the US imposed dictator (the Shah) that ran Iran since 1953, we have been at continual odds with Iran. Taken from my earlier post again: Things moved along fairly nicely (some bumps in the road aside) until 1979, when the Iranian people had the audacity to overthrow the Shah and insert their own government in his place. The friendliness to US businesses dried up, almost overnight, and the peace-loving, democratic US government was forced into action. Thus began the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980's with the US positioned firmly in the corner of Iraqi dictator Saddam Heussein. We continued to support Saddam through his worst atrocities, including the use of poison gas. This was all supported by the US government, as the infamous Rumsfeld-Heussein handshake photo will attest. If things continue as they are, invasion and occupation of Iran seems inevitable. 3. Guard against a revived, imperialist Russia or a Russo-Sino coalition. We fought the Soviets for 50 years in the Cold War, but what was the real cause of our differences in philosophy? While all of this is occurring, we are still fighting the evils of Communism in the Cold War. The Soviets were battling insurgents in Afghanistan, and the US saw a chance to weaken our anti-capitalistic enemies. We provided support for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Soviets (whether or not this support was material or merely moral is not conclusive, but we certainly did not DIScourage it). We even made glorious Hollywood movies about it (Rambo 3). In essence, we stimulated the growth of Islamic fundamentalism that was to fill the void left by the destruction of secular Arab nationalism in 1967. We didn't like the Soviets, because communism is anti-capitalist, and we didn't like the Iranians, because they refused to submit to the US-imposed Shah dictatorship. Since 1989, Russia had ceased to be a threat, either in the oil-producing region of the Middle East or anywhere else. However, recently Russia has experienced a revival of sorts. Has anyone else noticed a growth in the negative press regarding Russia recently? And in so many ways? Hmmm... This explanation fits too well to be taken as mere coincidence. We know we can eliminate the democracy-spreading, freedom-loving, genocide-preventing rhetoric that we hear so often. This blog, and many other sites, have shown over and over again that none of these supposed reasons are at the heart of our actions, since we allow - and sometimes actively support - repression, imperialism, and genocide around the world. The universal application of the economic doctrine, however, does not have these same holes. We have never, to my knowledge, supported a regime, country, or group that operates contrary to our economic interests. Conversely, we have supported multiple groups (many of them recent) that engage in anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and genocidal activities. This is not consistent with "core values". It appears that economics is our only core value, and woe to those who do not help us to achieve it.