current affairs in an historical context
Like the British before us, the major goal of U.S. foreign policy in the region is to maintain absolute control over our supply of foreign oil. A detailed history of how the U.S. and Britain have maintained control of Middle East oil would require writing a whole book. Suffice it to say that the major oil powers, those who control the refineries and distribution network, have used the politics of “divide and conquer” to control the land that the resource is on.
U.S. foreign policy has been successful in setting Iraq against Iran, the rich Arab states against those who are not as rich, and the poor ones, such as Egypt, against both. Israelis and Palestinians have been kept in perpetual conflict over land, with all of the other Islamic states siding with the Palestinians, while the U.S. sides with Israel.
Despite the overwhelming economic and military power of the U.S. and Britain, opposition has developed, slowly at first with Nasser and Arab nationalism, and now more rapidly with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which now represents such a threat that overt action against it must be taken if control over the oil is to be maintained.
Iran has always been a threat to the U.S. The Shah was instrumental in the formation of the OPEC oil cartel. After his fall, Islamic fundamentalists took political power. Today, Iran carries out its political goals in the Middle East through Hezbollah, a paramilitary (terrorist?) organization.
With respect to Iraq, this country has opposed Western power since 1920, when the British decided to set up Kuwait as an independent country inside Iraqi territory, their actions, of course, motivated by discovery of the Rumelia oil fields.
U.S. policies of playing Iraq off against Iran were successful up until the advent of the Gulf War in 1991, at which time Iran and Iraq settled their differences and now present a united front against the U.S. The power of these nations, plus that of the underlying Islamic movement, are such a substantial threat to U.S. control of the oil that almost any action against them, including acts of war or outright war, can be justified in Washington and London.
In the event of war, it is not likely that nuclear weapons will be used, but CBWs (chemical-biological weapons) are another matter. If the decision is made to use these weapons to fight certain countries, the next question is, “How do we use them?” Certainly they are effective when used at low altitudes. But what if there is ground fire and the aircraft are not able to come in at low altitudes. The alternative would be to dump large amounts of chemicals (which would be safer for the pilots) from high altitudes. Little is known as to how the chemicals would be affected by the winds at these altitudes, and so a study has been commissioned to find out. Reasonably safe chemicals are substituted for the dangerous CB ones, and they are dumped at random over areas of the U.S. under all types of atmospheric conditions. The results then are evaluated to see how effective a given quantity of CBW would be if used instead.
Before the government can take its people to war, it must convince them that it is necessary. One way of doing this is to use the national media to spread propaganda about the enemy, something they have dutifully done in promoting the concept of the “rogue” nation.
If you cannot accept the ideas that a war for control of oil will be fought, consider the acts of war that have been ongoing in the region for many years. The blockade of Iraq amounts to an act of war, but the new administration in Washington is saying that it will step up the pressure on Saddam. Paramilitary training camps in Afghanistan and a factory in the Sudan were bombed by the U.S. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has escalated back to its old level.
10/5/15