Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Powell Tells Jews: "Syria is Next"


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 Siegfriedson

Siegfriedson

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 06 April 2003 - 05:04 PM

"Uncle Colin" Powell has stated himself, in a saber-rattling speech he gave on Monday to the leading Jewish lobby group AIPAC, short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee", that the US will not stop with Iraq. Here's what Powell said about Syria there:

"Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices -- and for the consequences." [Wild applause and hooting from the audience, largely composed of powerful and well-connected establishment Jews. (Note that the sound byte cut off, I suspect that the cheering went on even longer.)]

Now, exactly what "consequences" do you think Powell is threatening, as he prosecutes a war against Syria's neighbor Iraq? According to Lamis Andoni, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, it was a clear threat by Powell to "widen the war" and that "the U.S. will not tolerate any dissent in the region."

And the United States Senate passed a resolution on March 12th, Senate Resolution 82, which has so far received little attention in the controlled media, which for all practical purposes calls for 'regime change' in Iran, Iraq's neighbor: "Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran....Iran is an ideological dictatorship presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader.... the Iranian Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program....It is the sense of the Senate that... it should be the policy of the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in Iran...."

You know the drill. First Afghanistan, now Iraq, next Syria and Iran.

Full article:

http://www.natall.com/
  • 0

#2 redarmy

redarmy

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 06 April 2003 - 09:11 PM

Syria promotes terrorism they are next
  • 0

#3 longrider

longrider

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 07 April 2003 - 03:24 PM

they (buschs bunch) must keep profile
to show further usefull services to them.
Usefull idiots usually must leave, when
the stinking jobs are done.
  • 0

#4 Siegfriedson

Siegfriedson

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 07 April 2003 - 08:35 PM

Larani wrote:

"Siegfriedson,

Do something for me. PLease explain what it is about a Jew that you find so repulsive."


I am against political Jewish organizations (American-Israeli PAC, World Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc) because the agenda they push is always at odds with what I feel is just and right.

Now, instead of diverting attention away from the topic of the thread, please comment as to why Jews and Zionists are so vehemently in favor of this current war. You can try to pretend that Israel is not a factor, if you want.

http://www.nowarforisrael.com/
  • 0

#5 akula

akula

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 08 April 2003 - 01:15 AM

Siegrfriedson:

Don't be stupid enough to beleive the opinions and motivations of AIPAC are in any way representative of World Jewry and the majority of everyday practising & non-practising Jews.

And while the motivations of AIPAC, JDL and some other fringe elements which people such as yourself like to place directly in the spotlight as being the most representative and supported by "World Jewry", leave a lot to be desired, there many more Jewish groups out there (Wiesenthal Center being one) which do not support hard-line stands and "neo-right winginsm".

I challenge you to support me on this point and affirm that many Jews, if not the majority who choose not to complicate themselves with the issues of political influence, have the same worries and concerns over the modern world and the road we are travelling down, as their black, anglo saxon, asian, caucasian etc. neigbours.

PS I am looking at a full transcript of Powell's speech, and apart from being critical of many actions of the current Israeli governemnt and its supporters in the US Jewish Lobby (something you have 'for some reason' failed to mention), I think you (Mr Siegfriedson) need to familiarise youself with the ideologies of PNAC, and then you may have a more in-depth understanding of where this is all going, and that the 'Zionists' are not infact pulling the strings:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
  • 0

#6 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:48 PM

Behind The Invasion Of Iraq

http://www.rupe-indi...4/contents.html

The secret to a limitless debt: Dollar Hegemony

Normally, a country whose national debt grows rapidly faces serious problems. Investors worry that it will not be able to service its debts, and they begin withdrawing their investments; bankers refuse to provide it fresh loans; and the country soon suffers a balance of payments crisis. If the debtor is a third world country, it is forced to turn for loans to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These two institutions in turn stipulate a programme of 'structural adjustment', which depresses the consumption of the vast majority, depresses the cost of labour power, cheapens the country's raw materials exports, hawks off public sector assets and natural resources to foreign investors at cut-rate prices, and so on.

However, till now the United States has been able to run up a truly giant national debt for a special reason. Being the world's leading capitalist economy, and a military superpower, its currency has been used for payments between countries (and therefore for their reserves of foreign exchange as well). When it needs to pay its debts it merely issues a treasury bond (ie borrows from the capital market) to which investors from around the world rush to subscribe. Foreign investors buy not only bonds issued by the government, but also American corporate bonds, shares, and real estate. These inflows, soaking up as they do the world's savings, ensure that the US is able to import more than it exports, year after year, without suffering the treatment handed out by the IMF and World Bank to countries like Argentina, Brazil, India, and so on.

This endless supply of golden eggs depends on the US remaining the supreme imperialist power and the dollar remaining the currency for international payments. However, that is precisely what is now threatened.

Implications of the euro

In the 1970s, there was no alternative to the dollar. On January 1, 1999, an alternative arose in the form of the euro, the new currency of the European Union (EU). Of course, investors did not immediately flock to the euro. The euro stuttered at birth, falling 30 per cent against the dollar by the end of 2000. In the last year, however, it has picked up sharply, and in recent months has remained at parity with the dollar (ie about one euro per dollar).

The euro has become attractive for three reasons.

First, since the EU is a large imperialist economy, about the same size as the US, it is an attractive and stable investment for foreign investors.

Secondly, since foreign investors' holdings are overwhelmingly in dollars, they wish to diversify and thus reduce the risk of losses in case of a dollar decline: they are increasingly nervous at the size of the US debt mountain and the failure of the US government to tackle this problem.

Thirdly, certain countries smarting under American military domination sense that the rule of the dollar is now vulnerable, and see the switch to the euro as a way to hit back.

Thus even in November 2000, when the euro was 30 per cent down against the dollar, Iraq demanded UN approval to be paid in euros in the UN oil-for-food programme. This despite the fact that the currency markets at the time did not see a rebound for the euro and despite the fact that Iraq would make the switch at considerable immediate cost, losing 10 cents a barrel to compensate buyers for their currency conversion costs. Iraq also asked that the $10 billion in its frozen bank account in New York be converted to euros. The UN, a plaything of the US, resisted the change until Iraq threatened to suspend its oil exports. ('Iraq: Baghdad Moves to the Euro', Radio Free Europe, 1/11/00; 'Iraq uses the euro in its trade deals,' Arabic News.com, 7/9/01)

--------------

Very indept economical view on this war. It goes as far back as 1940 and the full history of iraq.

----------------------------------------------

Real Reasons for the US Invasion:
Military Solution to an Economic Crisis

Indeed the US has taken the contrary course. It plans to reverse the various trends mentioned above by seizing the world's richest oil-producing regions. This it deems necessary for three related reasons.

1. Securing US supplies: First, the US itself is increasingly dependent on oil imports-already a little over half its daily consumption of 20 million barrels is imported. It imports its oil from a variety of sources-Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, even Iraq. But its own production is falling, and will continue to fall steadily, even as its consumption continues to grow. In future, inevitably, it will become increasingly dependent on oil from west Asia-north Africa-a region where the masses of ordinary people despise the US, where three of the leading oil producers (Iraq, Iran and Libya) are professedly anti-American, and the others (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates) are in danger of being toppled by anti-American forces. The US of course doing its best to tie up or seize supplies from other regions-west Africa, northern Latin America, the Caspian region.

2. Maintaining dollar hegemony: Secondly, if other imperialist powers were able to displace US dominance in the region, the dollar would be dealt a severe blow. The pressure for switching to the euro would become irresistible and would ring the death knell of dollar supremacy. On the other hand, complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollar (not only would oil producers continue to use the dollar for their international trade, but the dollar's international standing would rise) and hurt the credibility of the euro.

In the 1990s the major OPEC countries, after two decades of discouraging or prohibiting foreign investment in oil and gas fields, raced to invite foreign investment again to carry out massive new developments. In the late 1990s Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq struck massive deals with foreign firms for major fields. Even Saudi Arabia invited proposals for development of its untapped natural gas reserves, a move that oil giants responded to with alacrity in the hope the country's mammoth oil fields too would later be opened to foreign investment. However, American firms were shut out of Iran and Iraq by their own government's sanctions; French, Russian and Chinese firms got the contracts instead. Chavez's increasing assertiveness threatens to shut American firms out of Venezuela as well. The Saudi deal-which the American firms were to lead-stands cancelled, apparently because of the Saudi government's fear of public resentment. Thus, if it does not invade the west Asian region, the US stands to lose dollar hegemony by losing control of the major oil field development projects in the next decade.

3. Oil as a weapon: Thirdly, direct American control of oil would render potential challengers for world or regional supremacy (Europe's imperialist powers, Japan and China) dependent on the US. It is clear the US is following this policy:

In the short term
In the short term, the US anticipates being in a better position than its rivals to absorb the immediate disruption arising from the war. It seems unlikely that the conventional armed forces of the Iraqi regime-depleted anyway to one-third of their 1990 strength-would pose much of a problem for the US's initial occupation of Iraq.

While the oil price hike would have an impact on all countries, the US assesses that it would be in a better position to take the immediate impact of higher oil prices than other countries:
First, it has higher disposable income than the rest of the world, and net energy imports account for just one per cent of its GDP. The US being a bigger, more powerful economy, can better protect itself from the consequences of the price hike.

:P :cool:
  • 0

#7 DonSilver

DonSilver

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 10 April 2003 - 07:29 PM

Very smart analysis, genius, except it misses the ONE CENTRAL REASON for the war:

4. We Americans are committed to killing (or converting) people, ideas, religions, countries that seek our destruction. This is why we fight in Afganistan, Iraq, and more to come...


The bin laden cultists made a grave mistake on 9/11.

A mistake that will cost their leaders, hosts, sponsors, countries, ways of life, and friends dearly.

That we may get some CHEAP OIL out of it here and there is great, but we would take this battle to Antarctica if that was the source of the attacks against the US.

A few years before the US totally crushed Japan, Adm Yamamoto said something that also sums the REAL reason for the current US shitstorm in the middle east: "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."
  • 0

#8 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 11 April 2003 - 08:58 AM

Don Silver you said,

Very smart analysis, genius, except it misses the ONE CENTRAL REASON for the war:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then you went on to say basically that your government will take on anyone that tries to destroy them.

Thats excactly what the article is about.

But the irony is, if you read it carefully, that economic mismangement by successive U.S. Governments is what is weakening your country. If you weren't so debt-laden, the Euro WOULDN"T BE AN ISSUE. And it is. A big one.
  • 0

#9 Auld Nick

Auld Nick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13404 posts

Posted 11 April 2003 - 11:49 AM

There are a lot of fantasies out there, but two have some cogency:
1. Remodelling the ME suits Israel just fine. I note that US comments on Syria were predated by DEBKAfile reports alleging Syrian help for Iraq. I wonder if much of the US 'intelligence' relating to Iraq's WMD programme and used to justify invasion did not originate from a similar source. Israel is the only nation under any kind of threat from Syria, with which the US's coalition ally (us)is currently trying to build bridges.
2. The future of energy supplies. The US administration would have to be even more demented than I think it is to ignore the fact that oil discoveries world wide peaked (in terms of barrels of reserves proved per year) long ago. Predictions vary, but it is suggested that by 2020, world supply will be less than world demand, and from then on it will decline exponentially unless demand is cut. Having economic control (=political control) of Iraq would certainly be very helpful to a nation which, like ours, seems intent on burning every last drop of oil available in the most inefficient way possible.

Not that I think the euro/dollar fight is an unreasonable hypothesis too. Just that it's not the only one.
  • 0

#10 DonSilver

DonSilver

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 11 April 2003 - 08:38 PM

for the US, israel is nothing more than the lesser of two evils in the middle east. americans probably like the french better than the israelis at any given time.

the average american redneck wants to see syria, iran, saudi arabia, etc. get their asses kicked just because they are viewed as one big family of US-hating muslims.

the average tobacco-spitting, gun-toting american cowboy wannabe doesn't need some jew to get him fired up about arabs.

i guess the jew-conspiracy theory goes that the jews are really behind all the arab terrorist attacks, so as to get the US to kick the arabs asses on their behalf.

you really think americans believe that puppetmaster-jew baloney?
  • 0

#11 Karlin

Karlin

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:45 PM

I must piont out that only the Canadian Prime Minister Chretien has stated concern about "Whats next?". This was his reason for not supporting the American aggression, among other reasons.

He knows that Amerika will be going into IRan, Syria, wherever they can gain another piece of the global control of everything imaginable.

So its not just wide eyed conspirators like me who fear the next phases of America domination. And knows thats the plan.
it is the plan - does anyone seriously disagree? World domination by america will meet serious resistance of course, even at home.

There are methods of dealing with dissent....
  • 0

#12 Suri-Comrade

Suri-Comrade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 14 April 2003 - 08:36 AM

Larani,

Your goverment is also old and outdated, and will be replaced with oxidised carbon chains shortly, and silicon dioxide (on the floor bed).

Please ignore the continous racket of gunfire and AA-guns, they will be put out shortly by huge flashes...

Thank you for your continued cooperation, we hope you enjoy your coming journey to outerspace.

-Comrade
  • 0

#13 rayko

rayko

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 14 April 2003 - 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Karlin
I must piont out that only the Canadian Prime Minister Chretien has stated concern about "Whats next?". This was his reason for not supporting the American aggression, among other reasons.

He knows that Amerika will be going into IRan, Syria, wherever they can gain another piece of the global control of everything imaginable.

So its not just wide eyed conspirators like me who fear the next phases of America domination. And knows thats the plan.
it is the plan - does anyone seriously disagree? World domination by america will meet serious resistance of course, even at home.

There are methods of dealing with dissent....



First of all, it is not, American Aggression. It is American self preservation. The US Gov't is not trying to dominate the world. If it weren't for 9/11 there is little chance that we'd now be in Iraq.
We do not have to dominate the world militarily, we already dominate it economicaly.
We just don't like the idea of a bunch of half as_'d arabs trying to slaughter our civilian population. Whats obvious is that 99% of the worlds terrorists come from the mid east. As long as they are bent on the destruction of my country I have no problem with hunting them down and eliminating them from the worlds gene pool.
  • 0

#14 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 14 April 2003 - 10:32 AM

Originally posted by redarmy
Syria promotes terrorism they are next



You are wrong. The USA and its rogue military promotes terrorism. That is why the USA has its camps to train terrorism in South Carolina. That is why the USA has allowed its corrupt CIA into overthrowing numerous Latin American countries. That is why the USA has been a part of every subtefuge that has occured in the last 50 years. It is the USA that is the evil empire and it becomes more diabolic and draconian under W Bush who is without peer--for his evil surpasses even that of Adolf Hitler and his barbaric brigands who also invaded weak neighbors: first Poland, then Czechoslovakia, etc. Their fall is no different than the evil invasion without justification of Iraq. Hopefully the Arab world will league against Bush and repel his corrupt forces.
  • 0

#15 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2003 - 04:38 PM

Originally posted by pacific
Behind The Invasion Of Iraq

http://www.rupe-indi...4/contents.html

The secret to a limitless debt: Dollar Hegemony


:P :cool:



Here is another article on the same subject:

http://www.globalpol.../2003/03oil.htm
  • 0

#16 vietnambob

vietnambob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3559 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 03:40 PM

Not that things aren't always subject to change but if so,...

according to how things have worked in the past I would already know its leaders name by heart and hundreds of evil things he had done and I barely know who he is and that he hates Israel....and us.

Not enough propaganda yet for a military move IMO.

Looks like it is next for economic warfare though.
  • 0

#17 Californian

Californian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1897 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 05:51 PM

Syria is next:

A White House official stated yesterday they are pressuring Syria, because if Syria is neutralized, then Israel/Sharon will have no excuse not to back the Road Map and a Palestinian state.

Sharon does not want a Palestinian state. Period. He sneers at this kind of attempt at manipulation.

The "or there will be consequences" demands of the US to Syria to include ending support for Hezbollah, expelling militant Palestinians, making peace with Israel, and (love this one) liberalizing the economy. We've already cut their pipeline from Iraq. The beginning of "We must destroy the village to save the village", Part II.

We're getting used to how the White House thinks. Iraq is a lawless mess, so enter Syria as a distraction so we don't notice how inept they are post battlefield. Unfortunately, distraction or not we also know they'll follow through.
  • 0

#18 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 08:57 PM

Turkey = N.A.T.O.
Iraq = Occupied
Jordan = U.S.A. friend (very friend)
Israel = U.S.A. friend
Palestine = between Jordan and Israel
Syria and Lebanon = between Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel.
Syrians are not crazy people.
:D
  • 0

#19 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 10:00 PM

CHORNYVOLK
ULTRA NATIONALIST RUSSIAN

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.

An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.

To resume supplies from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through whose territory it would be likely to run. Paritzky's ministry was reported to have said on 9 April that it would hold discussions with Jordanian authorities on resuming oil supplies from Mosul, with one source saying the Jordanians were "optimistic". Jordan, aware of the deep political sensitivities involved, immediately denied there were any such talks.

Paritzky said he was certain the USA would respond favourably to the idea of resurrecting the pipeline. Indeed, according to Western diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with Iraqi opposition groups.

It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.

All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill.

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA.

Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment.

The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective.

http://www.janes.com...30416_1_n.shtml
  • 0

#20 pacific

pacific

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6441 posts

Posted 16 April 2003 - 10:00 PM

CHORNYVOLK
ULTRA NATIONALIST RUSSIAN

In the pipeline: More regime change
By Hooman Peimani

An Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, has reported that Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements.

According to the daily, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would reduce the country's cost of oil imports. This is currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia. There would also be a strategic justification for the project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in Israel's close proximity would increase its fuel security and would address its major handicap, that is, its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away suppliers. While living in the oil-rich Middle East, the Israelis cannot count on regional oil exporters because of the existing Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran, which was on friendly terms with Israel, provided its oil requirements. That arrangement ended in 1979 when the new Iranian revolutionary regime cut ties with Israel.

Paritzky has requested an assessment of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline's current state, which ceased to operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it has not been in use for more than half a century. However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and Israel, through which the pipeline passes.

Iraqi consent will be out of the question as long as the current regime of Saddam Hussein is in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime, if ever it comes to power, will still require Syria's consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel's mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil.

Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.

Oil pipelines are a highly vulnerable means of exporting oil, requiring a predictable long-term reliability of the countries through which they pass. Knowing this, the Israelis can only begin their technical assessment of the pipeline once they are convinced that the existing political barriers can be overcome. This requires new regimes in Baghdad and Damascus.

According to the Israeli minister, the United States will back his project since the pipeline would bring Iraqi oil directly from Iraq to the Mediterranean. In such a case, the Americans could bypass the Persian Gulf for their imported Iraqi oil, while having secured access to the world's second-largest oil reserves. Especially since the early 1990s, they have repeatedly expressed their concern about over-reliance on the Persian Gulf for their oil imports, which contains more than 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Given the concentration of the major oil exporters in that region, its instability could interrupt or completely stop the flow of oil by oil tankers, with a consequent major impact on the US economy, as it is so dependent on oil.

To decrease their vulnerability to such a worst-case scenario, the Americans have sought to diversify their oil suppliers. Apart from the Caspian oil-exporters, they have resorted to non-OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) African countries (Chad and Angola), whose resources are also closer to the United States than those of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. However, these alternative suppliers could only allay the US fear for a while, given the small size of their oil deposits. Thus, in the long run, the US will have to import heavily from the Persian Gulf region, where existing oil reserves will outlast those of other regions, and while some of its oil-rich countries, such as Iran, keep finding new oilfields.

Given this situation, finding reliable alternative export routes and means to sea routes and oil tankers for Persian Gulf oil exports is the long-term solution for the Americans requiring an increasing amount of imported oil. In this regard, land-based pipelines to carry oil to easily accessible warm-water open seas such as the Mediterranean would be a suitable option. A fully operational Mosul-Haifa pipeline could address that US problem, while satisfying Israel's oil requirements at same time.

The Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of the "coalition of the willing" - the United States and the United Kingdom - have rejected oil as a motivation for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the contrary.

Against this background, the US government's growing anti-Syrian rhetoric, including accusing Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq, may well be the initial stage toward the expansion of the war to Syria. If this happens, it could lead to a regime change there to serve various purposes, including the cooperation of Syria in future oil exports via the Mosul-Haifa pipeline.


http://www.atimes.co...t/ED04Ak01.html
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru