Oil is a Key Motive Behind Iraq Occupation, Australia Admits

Australia has admitted for the first time what many have long suspected - that securing oil resources is a key motive behind deploying troops in Iraq. "Resource security" is a priority, says Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world." he said. Previously the government had denied such reasons for the 2003 coalition invasion.

Critics have questioned the motives behind Prime Minister John Howards decision to join the campaign to oust Saddam and whether the reasons given for participation in the war were excuses rather than genuine concerns.

The UK/Iran Stand-Off - False Flag, Iranian Aggression Or Simple Dispute?

The war drums have been beating slowly but steadily ever since the second US carrier task force arrived in the Gulf earlier in the year. The American force required for a massive air attack on Iran appear to be in place. Keeping them there, on a high state of readiness, can only be sustained for a short period of time, so an attack must happen soon. The arguments for a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian (yet to be developed) nuclear threat are being made but after the lies and deceptions of Iraq WMD, terrorist sponsorship, etc. the Bush administration needs something more convincing.

The recent capture of 15 British Navy personnel somewhere along the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a stretch of water straddling a portion of the much-disputed border between Iraq and Iran, couldn't have come at a better time for the US. Border skirmishes are nothing new and up until now incidents have gone largely unreported by the mainstream media. But an incident such as this, whether contrived or otherwise, is different simply because of the timing.

It couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Hot on the heels of a modest but widely-backed UN resolution, some countries usually allied to Iran have distanced themselves, publicly at least. So why risk a diplomatic incident with Americas biggest ally, the UK, right now? Surely to do such a thing makes you at least a greater international pariah than before, and at worst creates an ideal opportunity for the US to encourage a chain of events that eventually justify all-out military action.

Many have been suggesting that some kind of false-flag incident is imminent and maybe this is it, or the start of several, but whether this is it or not is so far unclear. Its certainly not in Irans interest to capture the British personnel and threaten to put them on trial for spying unless they're damn sure that they have their facts right. Unlawful abduction would bring memories of the 1979 hostage crisis flooding back to the world community and even the most ardent supporter would find it difficult to defend the Tehran government. The longer this crisis continues the worse it'll get for Iran. We all know (except the Bush administration, it seems) that war with Iran would result in a far worse situation than what we are witnessing currently in Iraq. My guess is that in two months time much of Iran won't exist. I hope I'm wrong.

Blair is on a mission from God?

Extracts taken from a report posted on the Information Liberation website:

When Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, published his memoirs DC Confidential 18 months ago, Tony Blair reportedly called him "a complete prick".

A turnaround: in 1997, No 10 sent Meyer to the US with instructions to "get up the arse of the White House and stay there". And for the most part, the ex-diplomat's book protected Blair's reputation: although the PM had little appetite for detail, he said, and a penchant for "ball-crushingly tight trousers", criticisms were saved for other ministers.

So Downing Street residents are unlikely to be tossing ticker tape over an interview that Sir Christopher's wife, Lady Catherine Meyer has granted Whitehall and Westminster World magazine, in which she mentions the famously testy subject of Blair and George Bush's shared Christianity.

"They are both very religious and I believe that they both feel that what they are doing - especially Blair - is what God wants them to do and that God has chosen their way," says Lady Meyer, a Conservative who (regardless of the Meyers' pillow talk) had opportunity to observe both leaders closely. "This is why they bonded immediately."

She adds: "Blair started talking about getting rid of Saddam Hussein way before September 11 ... in 1998. So I think that on Iraq he was more ready than Bush, who only really came into this conversation after 9/11."

Lady Meyer goes on to accuse Blair's government of "astounding hypocrisy". One senses the end of a special relationship.

So Blair wanted Iraq invaded because of divine inspiration? Is the former British colony of Zimbabwe, currently dying a death of a thousand cuts thanks to Robert Mugabe, any less worthy? These religious leaders, bearing in mind they are apparently in direct daily contact with God, sure are inconsistent.

The Neocon Dream Uncovered

One of the most informative accounts about what's going on regarding US domestic and foreign policy, from an insider who knows the real deal. This should be read with alarm by everyone outside of the powerful neocon elite, so get in the foxhole and be enlightened......

Read the full story here.

clipped from www.afterdowningstreet.org

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran

James Harris: There you go, we're in a foxhole, so we're on the same team.

Fox News Filters The Truth Yet Again

The US carried out two seperate airstrikes yesterday on two different locations in Iraq. One was in Arab Jabour, a mostly Sunni Muslim suburb south of Baghdad, and resulted in the deaths of 8 suspected terrorists. The other occured at a similar time yesterday evening, in Mosul, and led to the deaths of 8 Kurdish troops and wounding six more. The Kurds were part of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a supporter of the U.S. in Iraq and the attack was a blue-on-blue incident (ie. friendly fire).

The news of both attacks were released to the media at the same time this morning and early reports by news outlets covered both incidents - except for good old reliable Fox News. They made the effort to mention that during the Arab Jabour raid 'no U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians were injured' and that 'Iraqi soldiers did not take part in the clashes' - almost makes you feel that the war in Iraq is being won, doesn't it? Thanks Fox for being so fair and balanced. 'We Report, You Decide'? No comment.

The Truth Behind The Iraq Invasion And A Possible US Conflict With Iran

I originally wrote the following in January 2006 and have decided to resubmit it, with minimal alterations, because of its increasing relevance to the current situation in the US/Middle East:

It is now openly obvious why the US (and its 'coalition of the willing') invaded Iraq (without UN backing) in 2003 under the banner ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. It wasn't for the reasons the Bush administration maintained at the time (suspected WMD, a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) but to do with the petrodollar. Many people suspected that oil was the underlying reason but few were aware of the more important need to maintain the 'petrodollar recycling' system.

Petrodollar recycling was introduced by the US in the early 70's, when Middle Eastern countries were beginning to produce oil of their own under the OPEC group of nations. Previously, most of the worlds oil was supplied by the US and all trading in this market was carried out using US dollars. When OPEC came into competition with the US oil giants, the Americans struck a deal with their Middle Eastern counterparts in which they would supply Saudi Arabia, etc. with arms as long as OPEC traded their oil in dollars. This meant that if a country wanted oil, for example Japan, they had to sell to the US their home-produced products (Toyota cars for example) in order to raise the necessary dollars to buy their oil from an OPEC country. These dollars were then invested back into the US by, for example, Saudi Arabia and this left the US in a great position. As long as they could print enough dollars to meet demand they would continue to dominate the worlds oil markets and would (and did) make a fortune doing so. This is what ultimately has made the US into the worlds only superpower, with the ability to afford the necessary military might to match.

Thirty years later, at the turn of the millenium, this cosy arrangement came under threat. Saddam Hussein announced his intention to begin trading oil in the other world currency - Euros - and began doing so before the US invasion in 2003. This gave the US serious concerns. With a massive dept of trillions of dollars (made worse by the habit of the average US citizen to spend far more than they saved, using credit to do so) the US could not afford to stand by and watch the petrodollar recycling system be undermined. The risk to the country's status as sole superpower was massive and with the debt the prospect of US economic collapse was very much a reality.

When elected into office, George Bush had as priority #1 to sort out this petrodollar threat by gaining control of Iraq and in 2003 he invaded. One of the first post-war actions was to revert the country's oil trading currency back to the US dollar, even though this meant that approximately 13% of Iraqs trading value was instantly lost (because the Euro was worth more than the dollar at the time). The invasion was also to serve as an example to neighbouring oil producers not to go down the same 'petroeuro' route.

Unfortunately, Iran has plans to begin trading its oil in Euros and Saudi Arabia is giving serious consideration to the idea. Should this happen the US is likely to economically implode, with its massive military very quickly becoming an unaffordable asset. America would become little more than just another country and its global influence would be consigned to the history books, something that is regarded as unthinkable by the corporate elite.

So the US looks increasingly likely to carry out an attack on Iran, probably involving tactical 'battlefield' nuclear weapons (in an attempt to destroy underground installations there). It is not because the Iranians are close to producing their own nuclear arsenal (the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” (see source) but rather to keep the petrodollar on track.

Wargame simulations carried out by the US resulted in the following conclusion being reached by Sam Gardiner, the retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades: “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.” The problem is, as was highlighted in the Iraq invasion and post-war years, that the neo-cons in the Bush administration are prone to acting illogically and against advice provided by people who know far better than themselves. Internationally-respected reporter Seymour Hearsh wrote the following in The New Yorker one year ago:

In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’ the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush administration officials] say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there."

However, a disturbing article by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi who, in an article entitled “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,”, said:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Should the US decide to carry out such an attack on Iran, China would undoubtedly become involved, since its massive economic expansion is heavily reliant on oil from the region. The US is leading us down a road to potential global conflict in order to protect its dominance in the world oil markets and is seemingly likely to bring about the pre-conditions to justify an attack regardless of the consequences. Hopefully there will be no 'coalition of the willing' giving Bush and Cheney some kind of international credibility and this may help to deter them from following their plans through, but we're surely in for a bumpy year, one in which the spectre of the US administration and its shadowy backers showing its true colours is quite horrifying.

How the US war with Iran will play out

It seems so obvious, particularly since the Iraq 'thing', how the US (with help from the UK) plan to build up to war with Iran. It appears that they are employing the same method as with the pre-Iraq war :

"A report, put together by Campaign Iran and published at the end of 2006, revealed that Daily Telegraph's political editor Con Coughlin, the man who 'broke the story' of Iraq’s 45 minute WMD capacity, was behind 16 articles containing unsubstantiated allegations against Iran over the past 12 months. The Press Complaints Commission has launched its third investigation into Coughlin in as many months after a number of high level complaints about his latest article on Iran. The investigation is looking at an article by Coughlin on 24 January relying on an unnamed "European defence official" alleging that North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear weapons test."

(source: UK Indymedia)

So convinced am I of the certainty of this that I predict the following train of events:

1. the US struggles to bring the Iraq situation under control and the Iraqi government continues to fail to meet the benchmarks set by the US.

2. these failings, coupled with the 'threat of nuclear weapons' scenario, causes an increase in tensions between the US and Iran.

3. a specific incident, maybe a 'terrorist' attack on US soil or something equally horrific, provides the pretext needed for a first strike by the US against Iran.

4. the war, far from being a short-sharp, shock-&-awe experience, drags out and draws in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) into a bigger, uncontrollable and unpredictable confrontation.

5. World War III rages on relentlessly for several decades, with every nation in Europe, the Middle East and Asia being directly involved at some point.

And all this to save the petrodollar from collapsing, sending the already-bankrupt US economy into free-fall.

Hey, Bush, here's that holy crusade you wanted! You better hope that there IS a second comming and your ass gets raptured good and early, since there will be plenty of people wanting to see you hang as a war criminal after all this.......