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