Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: the Iraq War was largely about oil.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.
These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Greenspan's remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:
"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point," he told the Guardian.
Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.
"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."
There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.
Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.
"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security."
Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.
One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as "truisms.")
But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.
The Iraq was "is not about oil" became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling --
Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a "wrong impression." "I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody."
Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, "if Saddam's primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation," said: "This cannot be further from the truth. ... He is a threat to his neighbors. He's a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind." She continued: "This is not about oil."
Colin Powell: "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."
Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not about oil and it's not about religion."
White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: "there's just nothing to it."
Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: "I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it."
General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, "It's not about oil."
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: "It was not about oil."
"It's not about the oil," the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.
Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: "This is not about oil."
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil."
Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security."
Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: "This is not about oil. That was very clear. ... This is about America, and America's position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed."
And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a "liar" (or at very least a "fool"), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.
What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?
Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil -- not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.
More and more people are making the connections -- but there's no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have no problem with the war being about oil.
The question is, just what about oil? I mean, the war hasn't like reduced the price of oil or anything. Was the point to raise the price of oil?
If we wanted to "control Iraq's oil," have we done that? Seems like somebody made a mess of it.
Saddam had no intention of curtailing oil supplies, he wanted to sell as much as possible and was making deals with French companies to expand his oil production. The problem wasn't that the US supply of oil would be cut off, it was that a foreign oil company, which used the euro, was going to get the contracts. Also, upping production in Iraq would have lowered the world price of oil. So essentially, the war was about profits and more profits and more profits...
There are all manner of papers and books written on the subject of Middle Eastern intervention in the pursuit of oil that support Mr. Greenspan's assertion.
One really good article is found at http://www
"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention
by Sheldon L. Richman
Sheldon L. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
Another book that accurately reflects and forewarned of the situation we currently find ourselves in was written in 1946 by Herbert Feis, senior Dept. of State foreign economic advisor to Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, Three International Episodes, "Episode Number Two: The Government Gives Attention to the Oil of the Middle East" (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1946. Read pp. 93-190 found at http://www
After simply reading these, is it any wonder we find ourselves where we are today?
It is frustrating beyond words that our children keep being sent to die for pig-headed men and women who dictate and shape disastrous foreign policy and we keep wracking up record debt year after year.
Hi...This came out today.
____
According to this, Greenspan admits the entire “war for oil” notion was not only not the President’s, but his own.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.
Peace!
Dan
http://ira
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal,
after GWB's 2006 SOTU remarks decrying foreign oil dependence:
'I think he has some 'splaining to do.'
http://www
In other words, 'It's about the oil.'
During the energy crisis of the 70's, I "invented" a new kind of electric automobile. It has a redesigned suspension system that pumps air with every inconsistency on road surfaces when the vehicle is in motion. The resulting compressed air generates electricity to help keep the batteries charged, extending the range of the vehicle... thus eliminating the main drawback of electric cars.
I thought I had discovered a way for a huge reduction in the need for oil, but I failed to generate any interest in the idea.
Watching Matt Lauer interview Greenspan on this mornings "Today" show, I had to laugh. Matt tried to corner Greenspan, holding him responsible for not coming out with these claims (that are in his book) earlier. Greenspan reminded him of all the testimony he had given "before glassy-eyed members of Congress" (and uh, I assume, the MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!) where his words were spoken exactly as they were written in the book. Greenspan should have looked at Lauer and said, "Hey, I gave my analysis then, where were you to report on it?" I hope he uses the same type of musings for whatever talk shows he's got left on his book tour. Sock it to 'em, Alan!
One thing about Al, he's long known how to hedge his bets! He is, as they say in the trade, covered. His smile tells it all.
Global Oil Mafia-nothing short of what we are.
Exactly. If it was cocaine that drove our economy you can bet columbia and Bolivia would have those WMD's.
but none of this of course is about Bush "betrayal" to Americans-who died for their country for OTHER reasons given.
This post, and all of the responses are painfully small-minded. I'll tell you why.
Oil is a global commodity. It's not just big bad U.S.A. who wants and uses oil. China and India have had exponential growth in consumer oil usage since their economies have modernized.
When the oil supply, in any region, is adversely affected, prices go up. That may not be the end of the world for us, but many more poor people in other parts of the world take a much bigger hit.
This is what presidents understand and you don't. Lives are at stake long before a war over oil commences. This is why war over oil is sometimes a neccesary thing. Because some dictators out there want to hijack the supply, and hold the world hostage.
It is a perfect case for getting off of fossil fuels, and I agree. But until that time, it doesn't make the USA evil.
Bullshit. When the energy companies have BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT, to RE-INVEST in ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, and instead continue to use our Govt. as a weapon in their war for profits, driving up our National Debt while handing out $36 Million Dollar rewards to would-be Vice Presidents to secure Billion Dollar "no-bid" contracts? What about this am I not understanding correctly? All of it is about GREED - and POWER. PERIOD!
Three Texans for President - three wars over oil, Vietnam - Johnson (undeveloped oil in the Mekong Delta) Bush I and Iraq War I, Bush II and Iraq War II.
And yes, Vietnam not only has oil, but sells it to the US as well as China and Japan.
I guess the rest is up to us to get out of using oil...we don't have to be waring and slaughtering people for oil.
Yes, and the best rice production in the region, Tin, Cobalt, Iron and Gold too.
Oh and the beauty!
Viet Nam has some of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever seen. If you may be searching for a wonderful destination for a most enjoyable and interesting stay, try looking into Viet Nam.
Oh Yes.
It will help their economy too. Why not let your money do some good and still have an adventure of a lifetime.
Just a suggestion.
All the best
Knute (Neo-LIB
Richard Perle said to Pat Buchanan on a PBS special about his enthusiam for war with Iran: "What's the point of being the world's only remaining superpower, if we can't throw our weight around alittle." He's deeply digested the lessons of our conflict with Iraq.
Did anyone ever doubt it was about oil. After all America was good buddies with Hussein. Any idiot knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nil.
And it was the Shah who tried to get oil profits for the people of Iran. What happened to him was interesting. He could not sell a drop of oil til he gave in to the oil cartel. Khadaffi broke the cartel and set up a socialist government which insured every Libyan had a decent home and education and health care. The sad thing is that America and indeed the world could be pretty well off fossil fuels if the money given to the oil companies had been given to solar and wind.
my Kissinger impressionation:
"zese are simply what I would consider to be truisms"
my Kissinger impersonation:
"zese are simply what I would consider to be truisms"
Oh Hello.
“Do you want to pay $2.00 a Gallon for Gasoline?” Bush 41.
“We will consider the interruption of oil to the United States as an act of war.”
“We should by their oil at any price and keep ours in the ground.” R Reagan.
We have to consider Americas strategic interests.
What do you think he was talking about? Is Iran blocking the Panama Canal?
NO!
My view, these Dinosaurs of War have no more sense than the dinosaurs they go to war to pump out of the ground.
Umm?
To dominate the world, we need oil.
We got some oil, but they got more.
Let’s go there.
Umm?
50% to 60% our oil is spent on food production, processing, transportation, storage and refrigeration, distribution, retailing and delivery. Add about another 10% when you factor in all the employees uses.
WOW, I have a plan.
GREENHOUSES and,,,,, LOCAL,,,,, YEAR ROUND FOOD PRODUCTION! Let the big CORN BOYS go into Bio-Fuels.
Then bring our boys HOME!
Yes, And Kissnger just said, “We could have won Viet Nam if we had just kept up the bombings.”
“Vee could hab broaat dem to dare neees.”
All the best
Knute (Neo-LIB)
Mr. Key-singer
Loading comments…
Posted September 17, 2007 | 12:09 AM (EST)