Energy Austerity: Elite’s Plan to Strangle Western Economies

Was the Real Purpose of the Iraq War to Restrict Oil … So As to Raise Oil Prices?

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, 4-Star General (and CENTCOM commander with responsibility for Iraq) John Abizaid, Fed boss Alan Greenspan, President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Sarah Palin, Bush speechwriter David Frum, key war architect John Bolton,  and a high-level National Security Council officer all say that the Iraq war was about oil.

Documents from Britain show the same thing.

But apologists for the Iraq war say this can’t be true, because American companies didn’t really end up with that much Iraqi oil.

BBC and Guardian investigative reporter Greg Palast – a New York Times bestselling author – thinks he knows why.  Palast is famous for obtaining original source documents from whistleblowers which tell the real story.

Palast argues today that source documents he obtained through cloak-and-dagger methods prove that the war was actually focused on keeping Saddam’s oil off of the market … so as to keep oil prices high …

Big Oil could not allow Iraq’s oil fields to be privatised and taken from state control. That would make it impossible to keep Iraq within OPEC (an avowed goal of the neo-cons) as the state could no longer limit production in accordance with the cartel’s quota system. The US oil industry was using its full political mojo to prevent their being handed ownership of Iraq’s oil fields.

That’s right: The oil companies didn’t want to own the oil fields – and they sure as hell didn’t want the oil. Just the opposite. They wanted to make sure there would be a limit on the amount of oil that would come out of Iraq.

Saddam wasn’t trying to stop the flow of oil – he was trying to sell more. The price of oil had been boosted 300 percent by sanctions and an embargo cutting Iraq’s sales to two million barrels a day from four. With Saddam gone, the only way to keep the damn oil in the ground was to leave it locked up inside the busted state oil company which would remain under OPEC (i.e. Saudi) quotas. …

Some oil could be released, mainly to China, through limited, but lucrative, “production sharing agreements”.

And that’s how George Bush won the war in Iraq. The invasion was not about “blood for oil”, but something far more sinister: blood for no oil. War to keep supply tight and send prices skyward.

Oil men, whether James Baker or George Bush or Dick Cheney, are not in the business of producing oil. They are in the business of producing profits.

And they’ve succeeded. Iraq, capable of producing six to 12 million barrels of oil a day, still exports well under its old OPEC quota of three million barrels.

The result: As we mark the tenth anniversary of the invasion this month, we also mark the fifth year of crude at $100 a barrel. …

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/was-the-iraq-war-to-get-oil-or-to-keep-it-off-the-market.html

IMF paper suggests U.S. should adopt $1.33-a-gallon gas tax

http://on.wsj.com/11T6RLe

Hopefully it’s clear that the global financial interests which control  both the IMF and the oil companies are using environmentalism as a smokescreen for their real agenda: depopulation and control.  There could hardly be a more strategic or profitable chokepoint for life-sustaining economic activity than to restrict access to oil.  And these are after all the same interests which are pushing GMO’s, war, fraudulent debt and slave labor conditions on countries around the world.  A pretty toxic cocktail from an environmental perspective.  The reality is that carbon taxes are extremely difficult to honestly account for (who is policing it?  a global enviro-enforcement army answerable to the corporate-controlled UN bureaucracy?   how many trees of what kind planted where are worth $100 of carbon sequestration?  Does the question even make sense??) but they have already been used to evict poor farmers in africa and south america from their land so that export-oriented monoculture farms can be planted.  The whole thing is a scam.  And still the average global temperature hasn’t risen with the CO2 since 1998.  These policies are democidal.

Threat of a Pre-emptive Nuclear War Against Iran

For more than a decade, Iran has been doggedly accused without evidence of developing nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic is relentlessly portrayed by the Western media as a threat to the security of Israel and of the Western World.

In a bitter irony, the assessment of America’s Intelligence Community concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities refutes the barrage of media disinformation as well as the bellicose statements emanating from the White House. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): “judges with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007, See also Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI))

“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

– We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

– Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007)

 

In February 2011, The Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper – while presenting the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – intimated -with some hesitation – that the Islamic Republic was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons capabilities: “we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

The 2011 NIE largely confirms the findings undertaken by the US intelligence community in the 2007 NIE, which remains, according to The New York Times, “the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.”

Post 9/11 pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine

First formulated in the Bush administration’s 2002 ‘Nuclear Posture Review’, the pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine -integrated into the Global War on Terrorism – started to take shape in the immediate wake of the war on Iraq. A pre-emptive‘defensive’ nuclear attack on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons was envisaged to annihilate the Islamic Republic’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. …

http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous-crossroads-the-threat-of-a-pre-emptive-nuclear-war-directed-against-iran

A false flag cyber attack such as Max Keiser is warning of would be a very convenient way to simultaneously implode the central bankers’ ponzi scheme and initiate war with Iran.

http://maxkeiser.com/2013/04/02/cyber-attack-alert-you-are-not-facing-a-financial-haircut-but-financial-decapitation/

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3698232-74/security-cyber-russia

And why not?  The so-called “peace movement” was happy to let them get away with 9/11.   The powers that be gave us the ultimate opportunity for real change on a silver platter with that one, but the so-called leaders on the left sat sucking their thumbs.  Obviously there is no honest peace movement in the USA, and because of that, we’re on the brink of WWIII.