http://www.israelshamir.net/Images/Shamirheader.jpg>


For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)

FOR FULL EQUALITY OF NATIVE AND ADOPTIVE PALESTINIANS

FOR One Man, One Vote

http://www.israelshamir.net/index.htm> Home
http://www.israelshamir.net/search/index.shtml> Search

This long and detailed essay is an obligatory read for strategists for it
provides a point-by-point analysis of America's stand in relation to Iran
and through it to Russia, the Middle East, Europe. Basing on great factual
material and dozens of footnotes, Bob Finch proves that Iran is the pivot of
Eurasian Geopolitics; friendship with Iran is the paramount interest of
merica, while hostility to Iran is in Israel's interests and is achieved by
efforts of American Jewish elite. Finch provides an answer to the long
polemics with Chomsky, standing squarely on the position of Mearsheimer and
Watts: Jewish elites carry anti-American policy and undermine America's
standing in the world. His main points are:


·         who benefits from American hostility towards Iran? Certainly not
America nor Iran. The only beneficiary is the Jewish state. The primary
reason America has never adopted a pragmatic course of action towards Iran
based on its own national interests is because America's ruling Jewish elite
as continually demonized Iran to deter Americans from abandoning Israel as
America's main ally in the Middle East.

·         America did not become a hyperpower because Israel was America's
strategic asset in the Middle East. On the contrary, it became a hyperpower
in spite of its alliance with Israel. Israel has been ruining American
interests in the region on an increasingly catastrophic scale. Israel's
manipulation of America into demonizing Iran will provoke a regional war
that will be so catastrophic as to bring about the collapse of America's
hyperpower status. The Jewish state, and its Jewish fifth columnists in
merica, will have inflicted their last catastrophe upon America.

·         America's belligerence towards Russia does not make the slightest
economic or political sense. It should be cultivating good terms with Russia
to enable its energy companies to make vast profits from exploiting Russia's
fossil fuel resources. It has to be suggested that the primary reason for
America's belligerence towards Putin is that America's Jewish neocons are
outraged that Putin managed to prevent Russia's Jewish oligarchs from
ransacking the country's resources. They are far more intent on effecting
regime change in Russia than they are with developing good relationships
with him to exploit Russia's natural resources. Here then is a clear
difference in the political objectives of America's wasp elite and America's
ruling Jewish elite.

         These American-Russian events are almost an exact replica of
events transpiring between America and Iran. The same Jewish neocons
pursuing the same regime-change policy towards both Iran and Russia. These
Jewish policies are doing severe, and perhaps even irreparable, damage to
America's gigantic energy companies. The greater the Jewish neocons' lies
and denunciations of the Iranian/Russian governments, the more
Iranians/Russians resist regime-change.

·         Liberal and left wing political commentators, despite all the
evidence to the contrary, continually insist that America's foreign policies
are concerned with the interests of its energy corporations. This fantasy is
also promoted by the Jewish state's political agents throughout the western
world who seek to provide a smokescreen for the power of America's Jewish
elite which implements foreign policies boosting the interests of the Jewish
tate rather than America. It is not just a coincidence that so many of the
liberal and left wing commentators promoting this fantasy are Jewish. The
belief that America is pursuing an oil based foreign policy is an illusion
conjured up by neo-liberals and neo-lefties who refuse to confront the
reality of Jewish power in America and around the world.

·         America's treatment of Iran is self destructive - driving the
country into the camp of its biggest rivals, Russia and China - both of whom
America is also antagonizing! It is bizarre, and highly revealing, that the
nly country in the world which America is not going out of its way to
antagonize and abuse is the Jewish state. America's hostility towards
virtually every country around the world is in stark contrast to its
grovelling subservience to the Jewish state.

·         America's threatened invasion of Iran runs counter to America's
national interests and, if it proceeds, will have a catastrophic impact on
these interests. It will also have a catastrophic impact on Europe's
ational interests. And yet neither America nor Europe are powerful enough
to dismiss the twaddle of Jewish propaganda and insist that their interests
would be better served by an alliance with Iran rather than with Israel.
Jewish elites around the world must have some colossal global power if they
can force America and Europe to undermine their own national interests for
the greater good of the Jewish state and the global Jewish empire. The
modern day parable of the cave is that the Jewish dominated media and Jewish
dominated think tanks have replaced reality with a Hollywood fantasy which
serves Jewish interests and all those intellectually entrapped in this
Jewish spectacle are unable to perceive their own true interest.

·         George Bush likes to compare himself with Churchill but in many
respects he's quite similar to Boris Yeltsin. Both were elected president
with the help of their country's Jewish neocons, part of a global Jewish
network of neocons throughout the world. Both were imbecilic front men for
Jewish interests - the only difference being that Bush seems to have managed
to overcome his addiction to alcohol during his presidency.



Iran - the Pivot of Geopolitics.

>
"In a similar fashion, but in an even more fundamental sense, US diplomacy
in Central Asia is seriously hobbled by Washington's alienation from Iran.
Ten years have gone by since the famous article by Zbigniew Brzezinski in
Foreign Affairs magazine calling for unconditional abandonment of the US
policy of containment of Iran. Brzezinski had brilliantly argued the case
(which most US career diplomats assigned to the region then also believed)
that for US regional diplomacy to be anywhere near optimal in the Caucasus,
in the Caspian region and in Central Asia, it must befriend Tehran. But
Washington's mental block over Iran persists. Least of all, Iran remains the
wild card in the pack. Depending on which way the Iran nuclear issue
develops in 2007, Iran can impact on the energy map of China, Central Asia,
he Caspian, the Caucasus, Russia and Europe - and, conceivably, the United
States itself." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The Great Game on a razor's edge'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL23Ag01.html  December 23, 2006).



1. Pahlavi as America's Primary Geostrategic Asset in the Middle East and
Central Asia 1953-1979.

In 1953 Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh
nationalized the country's oil industry. The CIA promptly organized a coup
to overthrow him and replaced the country's democracy with a dictatorship
run by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - yet another example in America's long history
>of snuffing out democracy in the Islamic greater Middle East. Over the
following twenty five years America showered the newly installed Pahlavi,
the so-called Shah of Iran, with the weapons needed to maintain his regime
against the wishes of his own people in return for allowing America's
multi-national energy corporations to exploit the country's vast fossil fuel
reserves. Pahlavi never enjoyed popular support. As time went by he lost
most of the support he had and was forced to rely increasingly on the
brutality of his security services to survive in power.



During the Pahlavi's reign, America looked upon Iran as a critical
geostrategic asset for a number of reasons.

* its possession of vast quantities of fossil fuels;

* its possession of large deposits of uranium;

* its position next to the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asia;

>* its proximity to the straits of Hormuz through which passed a major
proportion of the world's oil supply - today estimated at a fifth;

its geographic position surrounded by 15 countries many of which contain
fossil fuel deposits; and,

* its geographical position squeezed between Russia and China. "A look at
the map will reveal how geopolitically strategic Iran is for Russia, as well
as for Israel and the US. Iran controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the
choke point for oil from the Persian Gulf to Japan and the rest of the
world. Iran borders the oil-rich Caspian Sea." (F William Engdahl 'A
high-risk game of nuclear chicken'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html  Jan 31, 2006).


>
During Pahlavi's reign America looked upon Iran as a far more important
geostrategic asset than the Jews-only state in Palestine (JOS). Israel had
>little in the way of any geostrategic value since it had no fossil fuels
>and
>was located on the fringe of the Middle East, well away from Middle Eastern
oil countries and even further away from Central Asian oil countries. The
Americans enhanced Iran's geostrategic value by arming Pahlavi to become a
major military power in the region. This gave the shah another major
geostrategic advantage over Israel: whilst Iran could use its military might
to control most Moslem countries, the Jewish state could not do so without
triggering a regional conflagration. Iran is surrounded by 15 countries in
the Middle East and Central Asia and could easily and directly take military
action against neighbouring countries, whilst the Jewish state couldn't even
reach most of these countries without trespassing on the sovereignty of
other countries thereby triggering a regional conflagration. Pahlavi, then,
was America's policeman on the Middle Eastern beat.



It was only after the Jewish defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 war that
American politicians began to look upon the Jewish state as a possible
military asset in the greater Middle East. "The idea that Israel was the
«strategic asset» of the United States in the Middle East, or America's
«unsinkable aircraft in the Eastern Mediterranean,» was popularized by the
intellectual predecessors of today's neoconservatives in the aftermath of
the Israel's military victory in the 1967 Middle East War. The relationship
between the United States and Israel was promoted as a «strategic alliance»
in order to mobilize support for the Jewish state (after all, Israel had
efeated Egypt, a military ally of the Soviet Union) and strengthen the
political backing by disaffected liberal Jews of an unpopular war in
Southeast Asia." (Leon Hadar 'Neocons Amid Lebanon's Rubble: A Challenge to
Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument'
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12062  September 14, 2006).



Although after 1967 American politicians began to perceive the Jewish state
as a military ally, it wasn't until Pahlavi's fall in 1979 that Israel
emerged as one of America's major military assets in the region - despite
the fact that its military was strategically unusable. During this period
1967-1979, the primary reason for America's increasing approval of Israel
was because Jewish propaganda in America fabricated Israel's supposed value
as a military ally. Any objective assessment would have concluded the Jewish
state was a gross military liability: it couldn't act militarily on
America's behalf without causing a regional conflagration. "I do not recall
a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's
ilitary power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the
Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to
accomplish in that war.  They had, as you might remember, to suppress any
Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their
involvement." (James Abourezk 'Letter to Jeff Blankfort'
jablankfort@earthlink.net December 03, 2006).



Even worse was that some Jewish politicians let it be known they would never
act on America's behalf unless it was also in Israel's own interests. As it
has turned out, the Jewish state has never gone to war on America's behalf.
<http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn1> [1] So
whilst the Jewish state was unwilling to sacrifice itself for America,
Jewish propagandists in America were insisting that America sacrifice itself
for the Jewish state. During the October 1974 war America's military
intervention on behalf of Israel was a catastrophic disaster provoking an
Arab oil boycott which triggered a decade long global, economic recession.
And yet Jewish propaganda in America was so powerful it succeeded not merely
in sweeping the Jewish state's catastrophic impact on America's interests
under the carpet but in presenting the Jewish state as an indispensable,
unwaveringly loyal, military asset willing to do America any favours it
might ask. Jewish propagandists succeeded in elevating the Jewish state as
America's ally by pushing out of sight America's national interests. In
contrast, even after its Islamic revolution, Iran was still, objectively, a
far more important geostrategic asset in the region than Israel. As will be
seen, the same is true even today. America cannot get a better geostrategic
asset in the greater Middle East than Iran. And, conversely, it cannot get a
more catastrophic ally than Israel.



2. America's Fruitless, Twenty-Seven year, Policy of Regime Change in Iran,
1979-2006.



Pahlavi's brutal suppression of his own people gradually undermined what
little support he had within the country. In turn, America relied too much
upon Pahlavi and his security services to maintain its dominance over the
country's oil industry instead of fostering a prosperous, western-oriented,
>middle class in a stable democratic system which would have been a much
>more
olid and reliable source of support.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn2> [2] In
>1979, Pahlavi was overthrown by a popular revolt, an Islamic revolution -
>the first in history. Although America lost a vital asset in the Middle
>East, Iran's geostrategic value was too significant to be ignored. The
>Americans were faced by the choice of either wooing the new Islamic regime,
>and forgiving it for the relatively minor diplomatic offense of holding
>Americans hostage, or trying to bring about regime change. Under intense
>pressure from America's Jewish elite, American politicians chose the latter
>option. Since then, American Jews have continually stimulated virtually all
>American politicians into a knee-jerk, loathing of Iranian politicians no
>matter what their political objectives.
>
>
>
>America's choice of tactic towards Iran should have been decided on
>pragmatic considerations i.e. the most fruitful means for benefiting from
>Iran's geostrategic importance and its huge military potential. Seeking
>reconciliation with Iran would have been the easiest and quickest option
>and, given Iran's considerable geostrategic assets, it would also have been
>the most sensible. But a succession of American presidents continued to
>froth belligerently at Iran - even though there was not at any time the
>slightest prospect of their effecting regime change in Iran. Indeed, the
>greater the hostility that America has shown towards Iran, the greater the
>resistance it has generated amongst Iranians, thereby diminishing the
>prospects of regime change. To date, this tactic has lasted twenty seven
>years - an appallingly low rate of return for any foreign policy. America
>has had a number of chances to negotiate with Iranian leaders who have
>signalled they wanted better relationships with America - but each time
>they
>were rebuffed. Given Iran's vast geostrategic importance and its military
>potential, America should have swallowed its petty grievances in order to
>reap the vast economic and political benefits of an alliance with Iran.
>
>
>
>3. Jews scupper Iran's efforts to Negotiate with America.
>
>
>
>The question that needs to be asked is who benefits from American hostility
>towards Iran? Certainly not America nor Iran. The only beneficiary is
>Israel. The primary reason America has never adopted a pragmatic course of
>action towards Iran based on its own national interests is because
>America's
>ruling Jewish elite has continually demonized Iran to deter Americans from
>abandoning the Jewish state as America's main ally in the Middle East. The
>more that Jewish propagandists could persuade American politicians to
>distrust Iran, the more likely was it that America would continue to
>support
>the Jewish state - even though it was in America's interests to dump Israel
>and support Iran. That American politicians have failed to realize their
>country's national interests is due partly to bribes they were given by the
>Jewish lobby to support Israel. But it is also due to the virtual monopoly
>of Jewish propaganda in America. Americans are subjected to a constant
>flood
>of Jewish propaganda pumped out by the Jewish dominated American media, the
>Jewish lobby, Jewish think tanks, Jewish politicians in the
>democratic/republican parties, and Jewish politicians in a succession of
>presidential administrations.
>
>
>
>In the 1980s any desire by American politicians to develop a rapprochement
>with Iran were undermined by continual Jewish denunciations about alleged
>Iranian terrorism. "For example, in the fall of 1985 there was an abrupt
>departure from CIA's analytical line that Iran was supporting terrorism. On
>Nov. 22, 1985, the agency reported that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had
>«dropped off substantially» in 1985, but no evidence was adduced to support
>that key judgment. Oddly, a few months later CIA's analysis reverted back
>to
>pre-November 1985 with no further mention of any drop-off in Iranian
>support
>for terrorism." (Ray McGovern 'The Cheney-Gates Cabal'
>http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9988  November 10, 2006).
>
>
>
>In 1995 under pressure from America's Jewish lobby and the Jewish dominated
>American media, America once again sacrificed its own geostrategic
>interests
>by banning its gigantic multi-national oil corporations from investing in
>Iran's fossil fuel industry. "Under Executive Order 12959, signed by
>President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush, all U.S. companies
>are barred from operating in Iran." (Michael T. Klare 'Putting Iran in
>Great
>Power Context' http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150  June 16,
>2006). The ban was opposed by Richard Cheney and by members of Clinton's
>own
>administration. "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed
>by
>President Clinton as «counterproductive.» He said it had split America from
>its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel
>Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ''Israel Lobby' Caused War in Iraq,
>September 11 Attacks, Professor Says' http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40629
>September 29, 2006).
>
>
>
>After the Pentagon and New York (P-NY) bombings, America suddenly
>discovered
>Iran could help it over the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Iranian
>politicians offered to help America in a number of vital ways in the hope
>of
>reversing two decades of Jewish induced, American animosity towards Iran.
>Firstly, Iran used its armed allies in Afghanistan to help the American
>military overthrow the Taliban. Secondly, it rounded up Al Qaeda suspects
>fleeing Afghanistan and offered to exchange them for anti-Iranian
>terrorists
>held by the United States. And, thirdly, Iran helped America to stabilize
>the post Taliban regime. "After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials
>responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to
>unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had
>organized resistance by the Northern Alliance and had provided arms and
>funding at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so. It
>was
>thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported
>primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in
>mid-November. Two weeks later, the Afghan opposition groups were convened
>in
>Bonn under United Nations auspices to agree on a successor regime. At that
>meeting, the Northern Alliance was demanding 60 percent of the portfolios
>in
>an interim government, which was blocking agreement by other opposition
>groups. According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran
>played a «decisive role» in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to
>compromise. But the cooperation against al-Qaeda was not the priority for
>the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon." (Gareth
>Porter 'How Neocons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al-Qaeda'
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590  February 23, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn3> [3]
>
>
>
>Despite this invaluable assistance, in January 2002 the Jewish
>fundamentalists and their Jew-ish allies within the Bush regime manipulated
>their imbecilic president into denouncing Iran as part of an entirely
>fictitious 'axis of evil'. "Only weeks after the Bonn Conference in
>December
>2001 where Tehran's assistance was crucial in finding a compromise among
>Afghanistan's many warlords, Bush put Iran into the «axis of evil», along
>with Iraq and North Korea. Tehran's goodwill gestures were for naught."
>(Trita Parsi 'Iran the key in US change on Iraq'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK11Ak04.html  November 11, 2006).
>There were no connections between Iraq, Iran, and north Korea except in the
>paranoid fantasies of Jewish fundamentalists but the fiction succeeded in
>bringing the Bush administration into line with Israel's foreign policies.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn4> [4]
>
>
>
>The prime advocate for a war against Iraq was the Jewish lobby. The Jewish
>lobby was so effective in bringing about this policy it can be suggested
>America embarked on a proxy Zionist invasion of Iraq. Jewish propagandists
>lied to the American public that Saddam was going to attack America with
>weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi people would greet American
>troops as liberators. However, if America's occupation of Afghanistan had
>produced a raft of common interests between America and Iran, the same was
>true after America's occupation of Iraq. As time has gone by, the more the
>occupation has disintegrated into a military and economic catastrophe for
>America, the greater has become the Bush regime's need for Iranian help in
>curbing the multifarious conflicts in Iraq.
>
>
>
>Both countries have a common political interest in stabilizing Iraq. "The
>fact is that the United States needs Iran for maintaining regional
>stability
>and there is a growing chorus of ex-diplomats, such as James Baker, and
>policy analysts in Washington advising the US to engage Iran in bilateral
>talks." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi 'Iran and the US: Fork in the road'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ14Ak02.html  October 14, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn5> [5]
>
>
>
>In may 2003, despite being demonized as part of the Jewish fantasy of an
>axis of evil, Iran offered the Bush regime yet another chance for an
>improvement in their relationship. "The Iranian negotiating offer,
>transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss
>ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S.
>concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession
>in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National
>Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs. Realists, led
>by
>Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond
>positively
>to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the
>State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the
>offer." (Gareth Porter 'Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran'
>http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778  March 29, 2006);
>"Within two weeks, the administration had spurned an unprecedented offer
>from Iran to negotiate all outstanding differences between the two nations,
>including its nuclear program and its support for armed anti-Israel groups,
>in exchange for security guarantees. The Bush administration also broke off
>all diplomatic contacts with Tehran, including until-then fruitful talks on
>stabilizing Afghanistan, after accusing Iran of harbouring al-Qaeda
>militants allegedly linked to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia. The
>neo-conservatives were euphoric; their agenda had not only become policy,
>but their vision of a «new American Century» seemed well on its way to
>becoming reality." (Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn 'The rise and decline of the
>neo-cons' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html  November
>22, 2006). As a result of pressure from the Jewish extremists in the Bush
>administration, this offer was also rejected.
>
>
>
>At present Iran is playing a critical role in stabilizing western
>Afghanistan and could do something similar for the rest of the country if
>Bush gave the go ahead. "Equally important, Iran has played a major
>stabilizing role in Western Afghanistan, especially in Herat, severely
>limiting Taliban influence. Iran works closely with Italian and ISAF
>reconstruction teams in rebuilding the region. The Financial Times
>(November
>18, 2006 p.11) reports: "The main factor holding the west of Afghanistan
>together is the positive influence of neighbouring Iran which is 'pumping a
>lot of money into the reconstruction of the west', says a senior US
>administration official in Washington"." (James Petras 'The US and the
>Middle East: A "Grand Settlement" Versus the Jewish Lobby' December 2006).
>
>
>
>In 2006, the United States' ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad
>recognizing
>the common interests between America and Iran, tried to break the Jews'
>death grip over the Bush administration by insisting the administration
>should hold talks with Iran about combating Iraq's civil war. But, after
>agreeing to such talks, the Bush administration eventually allowed Iran's
>offer to lapse. Even though direct talks with Iran were in America's best
>interests because of its military and financial catastrophe in Iraq, the
>Jewish lobby and the Jewish neocons in the Bush regime succeeded in
>skippering any meeting.
>
>
>
>Despite these rejections, Iranians continue to seek negotiations with
>America in the hope of resolving their differences. "Najmeh Bozorgmehr, an
>Iranian journalist now at the Brookings Institution as a visiting scholar,
>agrees. Based on several years of covering Iran's national security policy,
>she says, «Iran wants to bargain with the United States on Iran's regional
>role,» as well as on removal of sanctions and assurances against U.S.
>attack. Tehran has been looking for any source of leverage with which to
>bargain with the United States on those issues, she says, and «enrichment
>has become a big bargaining chip.» (Gareth Porter Iran Nuclear Conflict Is
>About US Dominance' http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8982
>May 12, 2006). The Jewish state and the Jewish lobby in America are at the
>forefront of the pressure to deter Bush from taking the advice of James
>Baker's Iraq Study Group to talk to Iran. The day after Bush was presented
>with the ISG's report he was back to fantasizing over an American victory
>over Iraq, ""You saw that the president used the word 'victory' again the
>next day," said one of Mr. Bush's aides. "Believe me, that was no
>accident."" (Quoted in Jim Rutenberg and David E. Sanger 'Bush Aides Seek
>Alternatives to Iraq Study Group's Proposals, Calling Them Impractical'
>http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt706.html  December 10,
>2006); Asked about his comment to The Washington Post this week that the
>United States is neither winning nor losing the war, Bush pivoted forward.
>«Victory in Iraq is achievable,» he said." (Peter Baker 'President
>Confronts
>Dissent on Troop Levels'
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000
>308_pf.html  December 21, 2006).
>
>
>
>4. Russia's Dramatic Rise as the World's Fossil Fuel Superpower.
>
>
>
>Iran's geostrategic value cannot be appreciated without an understanding of
>Russia's dramatic rise as the world's fossil fuel superpower.
>
>
>
>Vladimir Putin has brought about an almost miraculous transformation of
>Russia's fortunes since the collapse of the soviet empire and the
>ransacking
>of the country's major industries by Jewish criminals - known in the Jewish
>dominated western media merely as 'the oligarchs'. From a point where
>Russia's Jewish neocons had been on the verge of selling off the country's
>vast fossil fuel wealth to American energy companies, Putin has not merely
>re-established state control over the country's resources, he has
>transformed the country into the world's premier fossil fuel broker.
>"Lavrov
>used an end-of-year press conference to declare Russia's return to «leading
>power» status. In a dig at critics, Lavrov said: «We understand that such a
>rapid recovery of Russia seems a surprise. For some it may be an unpleasant
>surprise.»" (Sebastian Smith 'Russia hits back at Western criticism, Iran'
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061220/wl_mideast_afp/russiapolitics_061220182
>159  December 20, 2006).
>
>
>
>The wealth from Russia's fossil fuels is financing the rebuilding of the
>country's economy and society. "It was a matter of time before geopolitics
>made its entry into the debate, insofar as energy sales contribute as much
>as a quarter of Russia's GDP and hydrocarbon exports provide the base for
>the country's economic recovery, and, in turn, act as the strategic
>underpinning for Russia's return to the international stage as a major
>power." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html  July 6, 2006).
>Putin is without doubt the world's greatest political strategist of our
>time. His dazzling global oil strategy consists of six main components.
>
>
>
>Russia's Fossil Fuel Pipeline Network: An Empire of Pipelines.
>
>
>
>Russia is gaining increasing dominance of the Eurasian fossil fuel pipeline
>network. Before Putin became president, Russia had constructed nearly two
>hundred thousand miles of pipelines. Since becoming president he has
>ordered
>the construction of a massive extension of the network and is attempting to
>buy up more pipelines to control the flow of fossil fuels across the
>planet's largest landmass.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn6> [6]
>
>
>
>The political implications of this tactic alone are significant as the
>following examples attest. China is highly dependent on oil imports from
>the
>Middle East, particularly Iran. It "depends heavily on Iranian oil to
>satisfy its growing hunger for energy." (Elias Akleh 'War on Iran:
>Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East'
>http://www.countercurrents.org/Iran-akleh091106.htm  November 09, 2006).
>Because this oil is transported via oil supertankers, China is highly
>vulnerable to American control of the high seas. In a confrontation between
>America and China, the American navy could block oil shipments to China.
>"Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in January 2005 in Foreign Policy: «Forty years
>after acquiring nuclear-weapons technology, China has just 24 ballistic
>missiles capable of hitting the United States. Even beyond the realm of
>strategic warfare, a country must have the capacity to attain its political
>objectives before it will engage in limited war. It is hard to envisage how
>China could promote its objectives when it is acutely vulnerable to a
>blockade and isolation enforced by the United States. In a conflict,
>Chinese
>maritime trade would stop entirely. The flow of oil would cease, and the
>Chinese economy would be paralyzed.» This is the basis of China's bending
>backward to avoid a military confrontation with the United States, the
>danger for which comes entirely from US pre-emptive strategy." (Quoted in
>Henry C K Liu 'The lame duck and the greenhorn'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HF23Ad02.html  June 23, 2006); "China
>has
>repeatedly expressed its concerns that in a potential regional conflict,
>the
>US Navy would likely attempt to choke Chinese fuel shipments from the
>Middle
>East in the narrow Strait of Malacca, through which an estimated 80% of
>China's energy imports now flow. Indonesia, which represents one of the
>strait's land barriers, would be crucial in that hypothetical strategic
>scenario." (Bill Guerin 'Indonesia-Russia: Arms, atoms and oil'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL12Ae02.html  December 12,
>2006). However, Russia is in the process of constructing oil pipelines to
>China which will dramatically reduce the threat posed by an American
>blockade of oil supplies to China during a crisis.
>
>
>
>For many years America looked upon Kazakhstan as an important geostrategic
>ally in Central Asia. "Washington had based its strategy on Kazakhstan
>being
>its key partner in Central Asia." (F William Engdahl 'The US's geopolitical
>nightmare' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html  May 9, 2006).
>American energy companies had made significant investments in the country's
>fossil fuel industry and yet their success has been limited by Russia's
>ownership of the area's pipelines. "In 1994, Cheney was a member of
>Kazakhstan's Oil Advisory Board. He helped broker a deal between Kazakhstan
>and Chevron, a company where Secretary Condoleezza Rice served on the
>Board.
>Today, US oil companies have large stakes in Kazakhstan's oil fields. But
>most of the oil being pumped goes through Transneft lines out of the
>Russian
>port in Novorossiysk. America has been battling with Russia to get
>Kazakhstan to pump its oil through an alternate pipeline, the Baku-Ceyhan
>pipeline, that goes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey." (Mark Ames
>'How
>Dick Cheney Got His Cold War On A Cold War Timetable'
>http://www.exile.ru/2006-May-19/the_cold_war_timeline.html May19, 2006).
>Putin worked hard to consolidate Russia's economic, political, and
>cultural,
>links with Kazakhstan to ensure it is not lured into a deeper alliance with
>America. "The US wants to expand its physical control over Kazakhstan's oil
>reserves and formalize Kazakh oil transportation via the Baku-Ceyhan
>pipeline, as well as creating the dominant US role in Caspian Sea security.
>But Kazakhstan isn't playing ball. President Nursultan Nazarbayev went to
>Moscow on April 3 to reaffirm his continued dependence on Russian oil
>pipelines." (F William Engdahl 'The US's geopolitical nightmare'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html  May 9, 2006).
>
>
>
>Russia's control over Eurasia's pipelines also gives it considerable
>advantages in negotiations to supply fossil fuels to India. "Russia's
>increasing influence in Central Asia and its dominant control of the
>pipeline routes implies that only a well-crafted energy partnership will
>enable India to access those oil and gas reserves." (Zorawar Daulet Singh
>'Reviving the India-Russia partnership'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html  November 14, 2006).
>
>
>
>Russian pipelines also provide fossil fuels to virtually all European
>countries and some Middle Eastern countries. The political implications
>this
>has for Europe are discussed below.
>
>
>
>Long term, State to State, Fossil Fuel Contracts.
>
>
>
>The second component of Putin's energy strategy has been drawing up long
>term, fossil fuel contracts with other states rather than supplying fossil
>fuels for the global market. In effect, what Putin has been doing is
>reducing the importance of global oil markets where American wealth
>predominates. "The US-backed liberal, open global oil market order is beset
>by an accelerating proliferation of private, state-to-state long-term
>agreements and contracts concluded within the circle Russia and its
>partners
>are defining." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia spins global energy spider's web'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25,
>2006).
>
>
>
>
>The political implications of this tactic are considerable. "Putin
>explicitly stated that Russia and other suppliers want long-term supply
>contracts with consuming nations so that suppliers know there will be a
>«stable demand» for their exports. The long-term supply contract tends, of
>course, to lock the West's consumer states into deeper and longer-term
>dependence on Russia, thwarting moves toward diversification of supply.
>There is also the distinct likelihood that as such long-term contracts
>multiply, the world's energy supply and even its reserves will become
>progressively «locked up» into private pools for consumption only by the
>states that are party to such contracts, thereby robbing oil and gas from
>the virtual global pool sustained by the traditional liberal global energy
>market order. The implications could include the development that unless
>you're inside the circle defined by such long-term agreements, then you're
>outside the circle of energy security. That implication could develop as a
>full-fledged concern much more quickly than is generally recognized,
>because
>by and large it is the economies of the East, whose rise is meteoric and
>whose energy appetite is ravenous, that are far ahead in the concluding of
>such agreements with suppliers to secure their own growing private pools of
>oil and gas. The West is already far behind that curve." (W Joseph Stroupe
>'Part 4: The West's thorny crown'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI28Ag01.html  September 28,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Putin's adoption of long term contracts is also being copied by other oil
>producing nations - doubtlessly under his prompting since synchronizing
>these contracts will yield further benefits to the contracting countries.
>"Instead, the world's producing regimes are increasingly entering key joint
>ventures between themselves and in very close cooperation with the
>powerhouse economies of the rising East, such as China." (W Joseph Stroupe
>'Russia spins global energy spider's web'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25,
>2006);
>"To varying yet alarming degrees, the resource-rich regimes around the
>globe
>are copying the Russian model. Resources-based corporate states with a
>profound political affinity for one another and a simultaneous collective
>disdain and even a hatred for US-led unipolar dominance are proliferating
>around the globe." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia spins global energy spider's
>web' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  Aug 25,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Another major political/financial consequence of long term contracts is
>that
>fossil fuels do not have to be bought with petro-dollars. Such contracts
>lend themselves to bartering arrangements. Petro-dollars are one of the
>pillars propping up the American economy. Bartering arrangements
>considerably reduce the colossal financial benefits that America receives
>from the use of its currency for oil sales around the world.
>
>
>
>Russia's Fossil Fuel Market.
>
>
>
>Although Putin has focused on drawing up long term fossil fuel contracts,
>he
>has not totally abandoned oil markets altogether. He is also aiming to
>create a new Russian market where fossil fuels can be bought and sold in
>roubles not dollars. "Russia's new St Petersburg exchange, slated to come
>online next year, will settle transactions in the rouble. According to
>Russian Economy Minister German Gref, Russian products will be offered on
>the New York exchange until the St Petersburg exchange is operational, at
>which time Russian products will be shifted out of the New York exchange to
>the Russian exchange." (W Joseph Stroupe 'The New World Oil Order. Part 2:
>Russia tips the balance'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK23Ag01.html  November 23,
>2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn7> [7]
>Whatever trade is done on this new market will undermine the power of the
>petro-dollar.
>
>
>
>Breaking into Consumers' Fossil Fuel Markets.
>
>
>
>Another component of Putin's fossil fuel strategy has been his insistence
>that if Russia is to provide countries with a reliable, long term, supply
>of
>fossil fuels, then Russian fossil fuel companies must be permitted to sell
>fossil fuel related goods and services in those countries. Thus, although
>Putin might sell fossil fuels at a cheaper price through long term
>contracts
>than he could get for them on oil markets, the financial gains he can make
>by persuading oil consuming nations to allow Russian energy companies to
>enter their domestic energy markets, enables Russian firms to increase
>their
>long term profits. In the past, many western countries refused to allow
>Russian fossil fuel companies to play any role in their domestic markets
>but
>now these companies can make significant profits all along the fossil fuel
>chain from production to consumption. "What Gazprom wants is to control the
>whole chain - from production to the final consumer in Europe. What the EU
>wants is for Gazprom to bring gas to the EU's external borders, where the
>gas will be bought by EU partners who will then distribute it inside
>Europe.
>This would mean the end of long-term Gazprom contracts with European energy
>giants - a no-no for Putin." (Pepe Escobar 'The Gazprom Nation'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html  May 26, 2006).
>Putin is pushing the same tactic elsewhere, "Indian policymakers should
>discern that Russia's long-term energy strategy, evidenced by its public
>pronouncements and dealings with the European Union, China, East Asia and
>North Africa, is based on the idea of comprehensive energy cooperation with
>all its partners rather than the traditional paradigm of import-export
>relationships. In commercial terms this would amount to the buyer nation
>opening its downstream energy markets (such as refining, petrochemicals,
>electricity) for Russian investment in return for assured supplies and
>reciprocal access to upstream Russian assets." (Zorawar Daulet Singh
>'Reviving the India-Russia partnership'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html  November 14, 2006).
>
>
>
>Energy hungry countries are offering other fossil fuel exporting countries
>similar package deals to obtain long term supplies of fossil fuels. "The
>lucrative economic, financial, political and diplomatic package of
>enticements being offered to producers around the globe by China, India and
>the other economies of the East far outweigh what the US can offer - the US
>simply cannot compete." (W Joseph Stroupe 'The New World Oil Order. Part 1:
>Russia tips the balance'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK23Ag01.html  November 23,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Co-ordinating Fossil Fuel Strategies.
>
>
>
>Russia is also drawing up agreements with other fossil fuel producing
>countries that will protect their mutual interests rather than allowing
>competition on global markets to undermine their interests. "Stronger
>economic ties could translate into new philosophies surrounding Indonesia's
>management of its bountiful natural resources. Noting that Indonesia is
>currently the biggest supplier of energy to Asia, Putin said: «We believe
>it
>is extremely important to coordinate our actions on world energy markets so
>that there is no damage but instead to boost cooperation.» Indonesia and
>Russia are now set to sign an agreement for Russian energy giants Gazprom
>and Lukoil to take part in oil and gas projects in Kalimantan, the
>Indonesian section of Borneo island. That could open the way for Russian
>companies to secure more lucrative natural-resource deals, which until now
>has long been the domain of US and other Western resource giants such as
>Texaco, Exxon Mobil, Unocal and Conoco." (Bill Guerin 'Indonesia-Russia:
>Arms, atoms and oil'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL12Ae02.html  December 12,
>2006). <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn8>
>[8]
>
>
>
>Excluding America's Energy Companies from Exploiting Russia's Resources.
>
>
>
>The final component of Putin's fossil fuel strategy has been to exclude
>American energy companies from exploiting Russia's fossil fuel resources.
>When Putin first became president of Russia he was willing to allow
>American
>energy companies to continue with the one-sided contracts they'd drawn up
>during Boris Yeltsin's presidency. Putin built a seemingly trusting
>relationship with George Bush who looked into Putin's soul and liked what
>he
>saw. The two leaders' grew even closer in the aftermath of the Pentagon and
>New York (P-NY) bombings - Russia providing help for America's invasion of
>Afghanistan. But, only a matter of months later, Bush repudiated the
>anti-ballistic missile treaty in the belief that America could develop the
>technology for winning a nuclear war. This posed a huge strategic threat to
>Russia. <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn9>
>[9]  As Stephen F Cohen has outlined, since 1991 successive American
>administrations, including the Bush regime, have pursued a twofold policy
>towards Russia - publicly encouraging it whilst actually undermining it.
>"The real US policy has been very different - a relentless, winner-take-all
>exploitation of Russia's post-1991 weakness. Accompanied by broken American
>promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions, it
>has been even more aggressive and uncompromising than was Washington's
>approach to Soviet Communist Russia." (Stephen F. Cohen 'The New American
>Cold War' http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen  July 10, 2006). It
>has already been noted that Bush willingly received Iran's help during the
>invasion and occupation of Afghanistan but almost immediately afterwards
>showed little gratitude for what it had done. The same was also true of the
>way Bush treated Putin. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM treaty not merely
>posed an existential threat to Russia but was almost a betrayal of the
>trust
>that Putin had put in him. This led to Putin's disenchantment with America.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn10> [10]
>Eventually he seems to have decided that every time America transgressed
>against Russian interests he would retaliate by stopping another American
>company from exploiting Russian resources.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn11> [11]
>
>
>
>Even in July 2006 it looked as if Putin was willing to give American energy
>companies the chance to invest in Russia's fossil fuel industry. "Equally,
>the Bush administration had been pressing for a mega-deal for Chevron and
>ConocoPhillips - the US oil majors that have bid for Russia's Shtokman gas
>fields. Meanwhile, getting a share of the Shtokman fields for the US
>companies would be a major score for Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney).
>From the Russian point of view, it is yet another instance of having to
>appease Washington. Interestingly, Russia's Gazprom announced over the
>weekend that the successful bidder for the giant Shtokman gas deposits off
>the Arctic coast would be made known next month. The short-listing of
>competing companies - Norway's Statoil, France's Total and America's
>Chevron
>and ConocoPhillips - was completed last September." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The
>G8
>summit: A chronicle of wasted time'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html July 6, 2006).
>Putin's rejection of their bids must have been a shock to America's energy
>companies. "Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, announced that it would
>develop on its own without foreign companies the fabulous Shtokman deposit,
>holding an estimated 3.2 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 31
>million
>tonnes of gas condensate in the Barents Sea, 360 kilometres off the coast,
>at a depth of 320 meters. And most significant, Gazprom also said it would
>send most of the gas from the giant Arctic Shtokman field to Europe, rather
>than to the United States. Western commentators have rightly analyzed that
>the Gazprom decision on Shtokman ought to be viewed against the background
>of the broader increase in perceived US hostility toward Russia. The point
>is, Gazprom's decision hits US interests hard. There cannot be two opinions
>about that." (M K Bhadrakumar 'Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006).
>Putin is shutting the Americans out of Russia's vast energy business,
>"Plainly speaking, Gazprom's decision on Shtokman implies that as of today
>there are no major plans on the anvil in the Russian energy sector aimed at
>the US market. This is a dismal legacy for the Bush administration, which
>is
>supposed to be tied to the US oil industry by the umbilical cord. More to
>the point, this comes at a juncture when, flush with funds, Moscow is
>embarking on several new gas-production projects in the Far East, the Yamal
>Peninsula, the Arctic Shelf and other areas. US oil majors are simply being
>kept at arm's length from Russia's massive oil and gas reserves." (M K
>Bhadrakumar 'Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006).
>
>
>
>Putin is also moving to renegotiate or revoke the licenses of a number of
>American energy companies which had negotiated deals during Yeltsin's
>administrations under conditions far too favourable to these companies.
>"Russian finance officials accuse Shell, principal shareholder of the
>Sakhalin Energy Investment Co (SEIC), and operator of the Sakhalin-2
>project, of fabricating costs, which have jumped since last year by almost
>125% to $22 billion. According to the terms of their production sharing
>agreement (PSA), signed by corrupt officials of former president Boris
>Yeltsin's administration when Russia's Treasury was close to bankruptcy,
>oil
>production declining, and Russian corporates desperately short of
>investment
>capital, Shell (and Exxon Mobil at Sakhalin-1, an oil-export project) would
>not have to pay profit taxes until they had cleared their project costs.
>The
>cost overruns have significantly postponed these tax payments. «If costs
>continue to rise without control, Russia will be left with only 6% of
>royalties, while all profit will go to repaying costs,» Sergey Fyodorov,
>head of geological and subsoil use policies at the Natural Resources
>Ministry, said in September." (John Helmer 'Sakhalin gas: Shell loses,
>whales win' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html
>December 15, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn12> [12]
>Putin's action against Shell seems all too justifiable given the way the
>company seems to have been milking Russia's natural resources. "The Russian
>authorities have already attacked Shell, TNK-BP and Exxon Mobil over their
>environmental records. The news comes after Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil were
>challenged by Mr Mitvol. The environmental watchdog has threatened to
>revoke
>Shell's Sakhalin-2 project licence on ecological grounds. TNK-BP, the
>Anglo-Russian oil venture, has been threatened with licence withdrawal and
>a
>new investigation is set to be launched into Exxon Mobil's Sakhalin-1."
>(Marianne Barriaux 'Russia wipes £130m from gold miner by threatening to
>revoke licences'
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1960249,00.html
>November 30, 2006).
>
>
>
>Putin is also intent on renegotiating or revoking licenses held by
>non-fossil fuel companies obtained during Yeltsin's terms in office.
>"Russia
>said it was looking at revoking the licences of Peter Hambro, the gold
>mining company, in a fresh challenge yesterday to western businesses
>operating in the country." (Marianne Barriaux 'Russia wipes £130m from gold
>miner by threatening to revoke licences'
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1960249,00.html  November 30,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Conclusions.
>
>
>
>Putin's radical fossil fuel strategy means that Russia will benefit not
>merely economically but politically in being able to promote Russia's
>political objectives. What adds to Russia's strategic influence over the
>world's fossil fuel resources is that it has recently overtaken Saudi
>Arabia
>as the world's biggest oil exporter, "Russia, which has now surpassed Saudi
>Arabia as the world's largest exporter of oil .." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia
>spins global energy spider's web'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25,
>2006).
>In order to appreciate Russia's domination of the fossil fuel industry, it
>should be noted that Russia not merely exports more oil than Saudi Arabia,
>it also exports vast amounts of gas. Gazprom, which is on course to become
>the world's biggest company, produces about as much gas as Saudi Arabia
>does
>oil. "Gazprom had a gas output of 547.2 billion cubic meters in 2005. This
>is equivalent to 9.42 million barrels of oil a day, or the daily extraction
>output in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier." (Pepe Escobar
>'The Gazprom Nation'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html
>May 26, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn13> [13]
>
>
>
>Since the early 1970s America has had a strategic relationship with Saudi
>Arabia. The Saudis agreed to sell their oil only in dollars in return for
>American military protection. The use of the dollar as the world's reserve
>currency has brought immense financial benefits to America. However, as a
>result of Putin's fossil fuel strategy, Russia has gained greater strategic
>influence over the world's fossil fuels than Saudi Arabia. Russia is now
>the
>world's energy superpower not Saudi Arabia nor even Saudi Arabian dominated
>OPEC. "Resource-rich Russia's mounting global leverage with the world's
>other producing states and with the powerhouse economies of the East, and
>its profound political affinity with such producers and key consumer
>states,
>far outweighs the influence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
>Countries (OPEC)." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia spins global energy spider's
>web' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25,
>2006). In the future, Russia's influence over the world's fossil fuels is
>due to become even more pronounced.
>
>
>
>Russia's dramatic rise as the world's most powerful fossil fuel, power
>broker is leading to a resurgence in its global political power - much of
>which has been obtained unobtrusively at America's expense. Whilst
>America's
>Jewish elite have forced America into an almost exclusive preoccupation
>with
>the Middle East to boost the Jewish state's regional supremacy, Putin has
>been busy implementing a highly productive fossil fuel strategy around the
>world to regain Russia's global influence. Whereas the Bush regime has been
>squandering vast amounts of financial, and human, resources on military
>catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost as if it believes its supply
>of
>dollar is limitless, Putin has been carefully husbanding his country's
>resources to maximize their economic and political potential. Whilst the
>Bush regime has been belligerently challenging, if not attacking, virtually
>all the world's major military powers from Russia to China and Iran, Putin
>has been using his country's fossil fuels to nurture alliances with many
>countries in order to promote Russia's national interests.
>
>
>
>America's belligerence towards Russia does not make the slightest economic
>or political sense. It should be cultivating good terms with Russia to
>enable its energy companies to make vast profits from exploiting Russia's
>fossil fuel resources. It is impossible to believe that a co-operative
>relationship between the two governments would not have benefited both
>countries enormously. It has to be suggested that the primary reason for
>America's belligerence towards Putin is that America's Jewish neocons are
>outraged that Putin managed to prevent Russia's Jewish oligarchs from
>ransacking the country's resources. They are far more intent on effecting
>regime change in Russia than they are with developing good relationships
>with him to exploit Russia's natural resources. Here then is a clear
>difference in the political objectives of America's wasp elite and
>America's
>ruling Jewish elite. America's Jewish rulers aren't in the slightest bit
>bothered about American fossil fuel companies losing out on vast profits in
>Russia as long as they are able to continue attacking the Putin regime in
>the hope of restoring to power their ethnic criminal colleagues who once
>controlled Russia's resources. If there was a chance that America's Jewish
>oligarchs might succeed in helping their Russian counterparts back into
>power then such belligerence might make sense but Putin is so popular in
>Russia that there is virtually no chance of this happening. All that the
>Jewish neocons' criticisms of Putin achieve in Russia is to remind the
>Russian people of the intolerable conditions they had to endure whilst
>Russia's Jewish criminals were ransacking their country. The vast majority
>of the Russian people do not want these criminals back in their country but
>America's Jewish oligarchs seem to have a compulsive need to continue
>supporting their Russian counterparts even though they will never regain
>power and are dramatically damaging America's fossil fuel companies. And
>the
>longer America's neocon oligarchs persist with their outrageous accusations
>against Putin - such as his involvement in the murder of Russian dissidents
>- the more damage they inflict on America's multi-national oil
>corporations.
>America's Jewish fundamentalists have basically provoked Putin into
>marginalizing America's energy industry to such an extent it is being
>pushed
>towards extinction! "In virtually all cases, the interests of the West and
>of its multinational oil companies and big Western financial institutions
>are being minimized and/or pushed out as the global trend of
>nationalization, by one means or another, of the oil-and-gas sector picks
>up
>speed. That is occurring in Russia, in Central Asia, the Middle East and in
>Latin America. Within virtually all such regimes the lines of separation
>between the top levels of political leadership and the directorship of key
>corporations and industries are not only blurred but are being obliterated.
>The multinational oil companies of the West are being marginalized as a
>direct result." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia spins global energy spider's web'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  Aug 25, 2006).
>
>
>
>These American-Russian events are almost an exact replica of events
>transpiring between America and Iran. The same Jewish neocons pursuing the
>same regime-change policy towards both Iran and Russia. These Jewish
>policies are doing severe, and perhaps even irreparable, damage to
>America's
>gigantic energy companies. The greater the Jewish neocons' lies and
>denunciations of the Iranian/Russian governments, the more
>Iranians/Russians
>resist regime-change. The Iranian people have seen what America's Jewish
>inspired policies have done in Iraq whilst the Russian people have seen
>what
>the Jewish neocons did to their country during Yeltsin's reign, and neither
>wants to suffer again because of these Jewish criminals stirring up such
>self-serving hatred.
>
>
>
>5. The Rise of Iran's Geostrategic Value.
>
>
>
>During Pahlavi's reign, Iran possessed considerable geostrategic value
>which
>America was all too willing to exploit and enhance. There are a range of
>reasons for proposing that Iran's geostrategic value is even greater now
>than it was then.
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: America in the Middle East.
>
>
>
>Ever since the Pentagon and New York (P-NY) bombings America's Jewish
>neocon
>foreign policies have inadvertently boosted Iran's political and military
>power. Firstly, America's invasion of Afghanistan resulted in the overthrow
>of the Taliban - an implacable enemy of Shia Iran. Secondly, America
>invaded
>Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein - Iran's biggest adversary. If this
>wasn't
>enough, the American neocons tried to replace Saddam with another dictator
>-
>Ahmed Chalabi - later exposed as an Iranian double agent. Thirdly, the
>coalition provisional authority set up after the invasion of Iraq
>dismantled
>the Iraqi military thereby leaving the country virtually powerless against
>Iran. Fourthly, the Bush regime was eventually pressured into accepting
>national elections in Iraq which allowed Iraqi Shiites, allies of Iran, to
>take a dominant role in the Iraqi government. Fifthly, after the
>assassination of Rafiq Hariri, America forced Syria to remove its army from
>the Lebanon thereby giving default power to Hezbollah which has been
>trained, armed, and financed, by Iran. Sixthly, the Bush administration
>insisted on free elections in Palestine only for the Palestinians to elect
>Hamas - another Iranian ally.
>
>
>
>So, in a matter of a few, short years America's neocon foreign policies
>boosted Iran's power in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. "So far
>the administration's magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has
>produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of
>Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming
>election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy
>of
>Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in
>Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut."
>(Arnaud
>de Borchgrave 'Iraq, Iran unintended results'
>http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-11570
>4-7804r  Feb. 17th 2006). They have even boosted the power of hardliners
>within Iranian politics.
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Common Interests with America.
>
>
>
>America has always shared some common interests with Iran.
>
>
>
>Firstly, developing Iran's fossil fuel reserves. If America had allowed its
>multinational energy corporations to exploit Iran's vast fossil fuel
>reserves, both countries would have enjoyed a huge economic bonanza.
>America's oil corporations would have made huge profits - profits that
>would
>have helped to boost the American economy. The profits made by the Iranians
>would have enabled them to buy American goods and weapons - instead of the
>current situation where America's ruling Jewish elite manipulates America
>into giving away American weapons to the Jewish state for free.
>
>
>
>Secondly, developing Iran's uranium deposits.
>
>
>
>Thirdly, stemming drug production in Afghanistan. There are a huge number
>of
>heroin addicts in Iran - just as there are in America. The drug trade
>damages Iranian society just as much as it does American society. "Like the
>fact that no nation fights harder against the Afghan drug trade than our
>axis-of-evil enemy Iran, while our «staunch ally» Pakistan lends support to
>the trade and to the Taliban as well." (Ann Jones 'What Are They Smoking?'
>http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9933  October 30, 2006).
>America's occupation of Afghanistan has caused the production of heroin to
>soar. <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn14>
>[14]
>
>
>
>America's catastrophic foreign policies in the greater Middle East have not
>merely inadvertently boosted Iran's geostrategic value, they have also
>established new common interests between the two countries. As a result of
>its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, America has common interests with
>Iran in establishing political stability in these two countries - which
>would also help to stabilize the Middle East as a whole.
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: Central Asia.
>
>
>
>The discovery of vast oil and gas deposits in Central Asia boosted Iran's
>geostrategic value. The shortest, quickest, and cheapest, route for the
>export of these fuels is through pipelines across Iran to the country's
>Persian gulf ports. "Geographically Iran makes the shortest and the most
>economical route for Kazakhstan's oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea, north,
>to the Persian Gulf south with all the oil-tankers traffic." (Elias Akleh
>'War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East'
>http://www.countercurrents.org/Iran-akleh091106.htm  November 09, 2006).
>The
>same is also true as regards Turkmenistan and, since America's invasion,
>Afghanistan. "Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it
>is the only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to
>Pakistan and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push
>Delhi
>away from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline. As Afghanistan falls
>again into substantial chaos, India is being forced to reconsider, and to
>seek to draw on Iran's Yadavan fields, with a pipeline coming down through
>Pakistani Baluchistan and over to the Indian border. The turn for the worst
>in Afghanistan may explain the sudden warming of relations between Delhi
>and
>Tehran." (Juan Cole 'The Iraqization of Afghanistan'
>http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html  September 08,
>2006).
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: Europe.
>
>
>
>Europe currently obtains a substantial amount of its fossil fuels from
>Russia. Friedmann Muller, head of the research group Global Issues at the
>German Institute for International and Security Affairs .. "emphasizes that
>10 of the current 25 EU member states depend on Russia for more than 50% of
>their total natural-gas supplies, and five of them for 100%. France,
>Germany
>and Italy import between 25% and 50% each." (Pepe Escobar 'Iran impasse:
>Make gas, not bombs' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html
>May 9, 2006); "At the consumer end of this (Russian) pipeline system,
>reliance on Russian gas is currently 100% in Finland; 99% in Bulgaria; 97%
>in Slovakia; and 76% in Greece. In volume of Russian gas consumption,
>Germany takes most, followed by Italy, Turkey and France." (John Helmer
>'Sakhalin gas: Shell loses, whales win'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html  December 15,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Europe's imports of Russian fossil fuels will increase dramatically in the
>coming decades. "Europe now depends on Russia for 25% of its gas, a figure
>set to rise to 70% by 2020 ..." (David Clark 'Putin's power struggle'
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1959441,00.html  November 29,
>2006). But Russia is also offering to sell more fossil fuels to Asia which
>means it is unlikely to be able to meet all of Europe's energy needs. This
>boosts Iran's geostrategic value. "In short, Russia by itself will not
>solve
>Europe's gas thirst, especially because Russia also wants to export heavily
>to both China and Japan. So Europe will have to find the gas it needs
>somewhere else - North Africa and the Caribbean, for instance. But most of
>all it will need Iran." (Pepe Escobar 'Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html  May 9, 2006).
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: India and Pakistan.
>
>
>
>In the 1990s the Jewish state developed a strategic alliance with India
>because of their mutual animosity towards Pakistan.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn15> [15]
>The
>Jewish state and India have been collaborating to upgrade their nuclear
>weapons, and civil nuclear power, capabilities. In stark contrast,
>America's
>geostrategic interests are to keep the nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and
>India in balance to ensure nuclear war doesn't break out between them.
>However, such is the power of the Jewish state, and its political agents in
>America, that it has recently succeeded in fooling the Bush administration
>into proposing a nuclear agreement with India which will considerably boost
>India's nuclear threat to Pakistan. "C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor
>with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing
>restrictions of nuclear trade as India's «nuclear liberation». It «has not
>only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also
>met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the
>nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with
>China»." (Sudha Ramachandran 'India's 'nuclear liberation'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).
>
>
>
>The Jewish state, and its Jewish political allies in America, persuaded the
>Bush regime to offer to legitimize India's nuclear capabilities in order to
>deter India from supporting the construction of an oil pipeline from Iran
>through Pakistan to India. "Contrary to the assertions of Prime Minister
>Manmohan Singh, it is widely believed that during the nuclear bargaining,
>he
>did make three major concessions to Bush. Secondly, Singh conceded to
>terminate the $4 billion «Peace Pipeline» project, which was to have
>delivered natural gas from Iran, across Pakistan, to India which was slated
>to be operational by 2011. And Thirdly, Singh has demoted the main
>architect
>and proponent of the Peace Pipeline, his Union Petroleum Minister, Mani
>Shankar Aiyar to the post of Sports and Youth Affairs." (Ingmar Lee 'Bush's
>Destabilizing Nuke Deal with India'
>http://www.counterpunch.org/lee05082006.html May 8, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn16> [16]
>
>
>
>India, however, badly needs to acquire vast quantities of energy. It can do
>this by increasing civil nuclear power with American help or by importing
>fossil fuels from Kazakhstan, Iran, or Russia. Given the chaotic situation
>in Afghanistan, which discourages the construction of a fossil fuel
>pipeline
>from Kazakhstan through Afghanistan to India, India has had to look more
>seriously at Iran's fossil fuels. No matter how much Bush believes his
>nuclear deal with India has deterred India from supporting the construction
>of an Iranian oil pipeline, India is unwilling to miss out on this
>important
>supply of fossil fuels. "Indian PM Manmohan Singh called up Iranian
>President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and stressed the need to fast track the
>pipeline project, which had seemed dead earlier this summer. (Last spring
>the pro-Iranian minister of petroleum had been fired, and some assumed it
>had been in part as a result of American pressure). By deserting
>Afghanistan
>to run off to war in Iraq, Bush ensured that it would risk falling again
>into social turbulence, and thus helped seal the fate of the Turkmenistan
>pipeline through Herat (wouldn't the Taliban just blow it up?). In turn,
>that may have ensured that Iran would be able to sidestep US sanctions by
>dealing, not only with China, but also with India. And that may mean that
>Bush let the big fish get away by getting bogged down in Iraq, which is
>turning out not to be any prize for him, either." (Juan Cole 'The
>Iraqization of Afghanistan'
>http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html  September 08,
>2006).
>
>
>
>Putin has recently offered to finance and build the pipeline. "Whatever the
>West may have thought about it, Russian President Vladimir Putin has
>already
>spectacularly pre-empted this weekend's Group of Eight (G8) summit in St
>Petersburg with his own bit of Pipelineistan news. Putin announced in
>Shanghai on June 15 2006 that «Gazprom is ready to support the construction
>of a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India with financial resources
>and technology». He was referring to a fabled US$7 billion,
>2,775-kilometer,
>10-year old project - an Iranian idea - which should now be finished by
>2009, developed by Gazexport, a Gazprom subsidiary. As a result, by 2015
>both India and Pakistan should be receiving at least 70 million cubic
>meters
>of natural gas a year." (Pepe Escobar 'Russia and Iran lead the new energy
>game' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG14Dj03.html  Jul 14,
>2006). What Russia might lose by not piping its own fossil fuels to India,
>it can more than make up for by financing, building and owning, this new
>pipeline. "Another dimension that has gained salience is Russia's emerging
>position as an energy superpower as the world's largest gas producer and
>second-largest oil producer and therefore its importance to India's energy
>security. Russia's increasing influence in Central Asia and its dominant
>control of the pipeline routes implies that only a well-crafted energy
>partnership will enable India to access those oil and gas reserves."
>(Zorawar Daulet Singh 'Reviving the India-Russia partnership'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html  November 14, 2006).
>
>
>
>As the legislation for America's nuclear deal with India goes through
>congress, India continues to struggle to ensure that the Bush regime does
>not obligate it to oppose the construction of the peace pipeline. "The
>controversial demand that India dovetails its Iran policy to US concerns
>over its nuclear program has been made a non-binding clause in the
>legislation." (Sudha Ramachandran 'India's 'nuclear liberation'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html  December 12, 2006).
>
>
>
>The construction of the peace pipeline would do much to ensure harmonious
>relations between India and Pakistan deterring them from embarking on a
>nuclear war. America is abandoning its own national interests by opposing
>this pipeline in order to promote Jewish hostilities towards Iran (and
>Pakistan). Clearly Iran has a high geostrategic value if it can help to
>avert nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn17> [17]
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: China.
>
>
>
>China depends heavily on Iranian fossil fuels being shipped to China which
>are vulnerable to American interdiction. However, there are plans for a
>pipeline from Iran through Pakistan and India and then on to China which
>would evade American military intervention. This would enhance Iran's
>geostrategic value.
>
>
>
>The Increase in Iran's Geostrategic Value: Russia.
>
>
>
>The primary reason for the rise in Iran's geostrategic value is Russia's
>dramatic emergence as the world's fossil fuel superpower. This can be
>appreciated at the most basic level in terms of the supply of fossil fuels
>to global oil markets. The more fossil fuel reserves that Russia ties up in
>long term, state to state, contracts, the more important that Iranian
>supplies of fossil fuels will become to the world's oil markets - assuming,
>that is, that Iran chooses to place these resources on the global market
>rather than copying Russia and tying them up in long term contracts.
>
>
>
>As Russia's geostrategic value has risen, Iran's ties with Russia has
>helped
>to increase its geostrategic value whilst the strategic value of countries
>like Saudi Arabia have declined because they have no such ties with Russia.
>It needs to be stressed that Iran's ties with Russia have been brought
>about
>primarily because of Jewish-induced American efforts to ostracize Iran from
>the rest of the world. "In my opinion, it is important to allow more
>flexibility for an evolving Turkish-Iranian relationship, especially since
>Iran is totally isolated from the international community. Because links
>between Turkey and Iran are currently being opposed internationally, this
>creates greater incentives for Iran to engage in a relationship with Russia
>which could threaten the viability and independence of the entire region.
>And for this reason, flexibility on this issue has strategic significance."
>(Zbigniew Brzezinski 'The Caucasus and New Geo-Political Realities: How the
>West Can Support the Region'
>http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/52_folder/52_articles/52_cauca
>sus.html  March 26, 1997).
>
>
>
>Conclusion.
>
>
>
>Iran's geostrategic stature is much more substantial now than it was during
>Pahlavi's reign. Conjecturally, it could further boost its geostrategic
>value by forming an alliance either with Russia, the world's fossil fuel
>superpower, or with America, the world's economic and military hyperpower.
>Both Russia and America would benefit enormously from an alliance with
>Iran.
>Iran's geostrategic importance is such that it can decide whether it wants
>to boost the global power of either, or both, countries.
>
>
>
>6. The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran.
>
>
>
>Although the Bush regime expresses loathing towards Iran's government and
>refuses to talk directly to it about matters of mutual interest, there are
>reasons to believe America could benefit immensely from an alliance with
>Iran. It would boost American influence in many areas around the world.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Middle East.
>
>
>
>As a result of America's catastrophic foreign policies since the Pentagon
>and New York (P-NY) bombings, Iran has acquired significant common
>interests
>with America. Iran could endeavor to reduce these common interests by
>undermining America's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq or it could seek
>to
>enhance them by contributing to peace and stability in these two countries.
>Despite Bush's ingratitude towards Iran over the help it had given America,
>Iran has continued to aid America in Iraq. "This is hardly surprising,
>given
>Khamenei's open admission that continuing instability in Iraq was «harmful
>to everyone in the region». From Iran's vantage point, it has played a
>constructive role toward the new Iraq, reflected in bilateral trade, energy
>and other agreements signed between Tehran and Baghdad, as well as in
>Iran's
>mediation role in intra-Shi'ite power struggles. Complaining that the West,
>and the US in particular, has gone unappreciative of Iran's constructive
>behavior, such as when Iran intervened in the US-Mehdi Army confrontation
>in
>2004 by urging Muqtada to desist from further action, Iran's new, and
>considerably much tougher, approach is that it may have no choice but to
>play a rejectionist card with regard to foreign occupation." (Kaveh L
>Afrasiabi 'Titans square up for clash in Iraq'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL01Ak05.html  December 01, 2006).
>
>
>
>America's traditional Arab allies have been Sunni states such as Saudi
>Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. However, America's rash interventions in
>Afghanistan and Iraq have inadvertently given birth to a new political
>phenomenon in the Middle East. "In December 2004 King Abdullah of Jordan
>famously described this emerging alliance as a "Shia crescent", a synonym
>that outraged Tehran but spoke tellingly of Sunni Arab fears about the
>ambitions of Iran to become a regional superpower capable of facing up to
>Israel. Although the inclusion of the Sunni Hamas movement in the alliance
>weakens the notion of a Shia crescent, the idea is not entirely fanciful."
>(Nicholas Blandford 'Shia Crescent Pierces Heart Of Arab World' The Times
>July 17, 2006).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn18> [18] In
>the short term at least, it is highly unlikely that the Shia crescent is
>going to disappear particularly since its leaders Ahmadinejad in Iran,
>Moktada al-Sadr in Iraq, and Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, are far more
>popular in the Sunni Arab world than Sunni heads of state. So either
>America
>accommodates itself to the Shia crescent and exploits the assets it offers
>or America embarks with the help of Sunni Arab countries on an even more
>catastrophic regional war to crush it.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Central Asia.
>
>
>
>Given that the cheapest route for the export of fossil fuels from Central
>Asia is across Iran then the co-operation of American energy corporations
>with Iran in building these pipelines could have two beneficial
>consequences
>for America. Firstly, it could significantly undercut Russia's political
>power resulting from its ownership of the Eurasian pipeline network and,
>secondly, it could boost the amount of oil placed in global markets thereby
>countering the effects of Russia's reliance on long term contracts.
>
>
>
>If America chose Iran as its primary geostrategic asset in the Middle East
>and Central Asia there would be much less need for it to be concerned about
>Kazakhstan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: India and Pakistan.
>
>
>
>If America had an alliance with Iran it could encourage the construction of
>a peace pipeline from Iran to India and Pakistan that would bind these two
>nuclear powers together and thereby lessen the chances of a nuclear war
>between them. This would considerably boost America's geostrategic
>interests. There would then be no reason for it to break the nuclear
>proliferation treaty by legitimizing India's nuclear industry.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: China.
>
>
>
>If American energy companies had a close relationship with Iran this would
>give America an even greater grip over China. "Controlling Iran leads to
>the
>containment of China (America's greatest competitor), who depends heavily
>on
>Iranian oil to satisfy its growing hunger for energy." (Elias Akleh 'War on
>Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East'
>http://www.countercurrents.org/Iran-akleh091106.htm  November 09, 2006).
>
>
>
>China is highly vulnerable to an oil blockade by the American navy. It has
>sought to diminish this vulnerability by constructing an oil pipeline from
>Kazakhstan. It is seeking to further diminish this vulnerability by
>concluding an agreement with Russia to build pipelines to China. It is also
>encouraging the construction of a pipeline from Iran, through Pakistan and
>India, to China. However, if American energy companies were operating in
>Iran then America might regain some of its leverage over China by
>influencing the amount of fossil fuels that Iran was pumping to China.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia.
>
>
>
>If the Bush regime allowed American energy companies to exploit Iran's
>fossil fuels this would create huge economic advantages for both America
>and
>Iran. However, the most critical benefit of such cooperation would be
>geostrategic - balancing Russia's recent emergence as the world's fossil
>fuel superpower. Iran has benefited considerably from Russia's rise as the
>world's dominant fossil fuel broker. However, if America succeeded in
>developing an alliance with Iran it could balance Russia's fossil fuel
>eminence.
>
>
>
>Firstly, and most basically, if American energy companies were allowed to
>exploit Iranian fossil fuels this would boost Iranian fossil fuel
>production
>thereby creating a balance to Putin's long term, state to state, fossil
>fuel
>contracts.
>
>
>
>Secondly, if America's nuclear industry agreed to build nuclear power
>plants
>in Iran this would reap huge economic benefits for these companies, and the
>American economy. It would also free up more fossil fuels for export rather
>than being consumed in the country. This would boost Iran's ability to
>compete with Russia.
>
>
>
>Thirdly, if American energy companies were allowed to build fossil fuel
>pipelines from the Caspian sea across Iran then Russia would lose much of
>the political leverage it has gained through its ownership of Eurasia's
>pipeline network. "As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo
>on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for
>the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global
>markets, especially in Europe and Japan." (Michael T. Klare 'Putting Iran
>in
>Great Power Context' http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150 
>June
>16, 2006); "Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia's Foreign
>Intelligence Service, said, «The US's long-term goals in Iran are obvious:
>to engineer the downfall of the current regime; to establish control over
>Iran's oil and gas; and to use its territory as the shortest route for the
>transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central
>Asia and the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia and China. This is not to
>mention
>Iran's intrinsic military and strategic significance.»" (F William Engdahl
>'The US's geopolitical nightmare'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html  May 9, 2006).
>
>
>
>If America had an alliance with Iran it could seriously challenge Russian
>power over the world's fossil fuel resources thereby consolidating American
>global power. "The only discernible result of US sanctions on Iran has been
>to delay Iran's development of its energy resources. Iran's oil and
>natural-gas reserves equal those of Saudi Arabia. The US has obstructed the
>development of at least two known large oilfields in Iran (Azadegan and
>Yadavaran), which together could have proven reserves exceeding 35 billion
>barrels and produce more than a million barrels per day of crude at their
>expected peak; has hindered oil and gas development in the Caspian Sea by
>playing the countries of the region against one another; has vetoed the
>construction of a Caspian pipeline through Iran (even though it would cost
>only about half the price of alternative pipelines); and has opposed
>Iranian
>gas pipelines to Pakistan and India, even offering India nuclear deals in
>exchange for not buying Iranian gas." (Hossein Askari 'Why sanctions on
>Iran
>will fail' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI19Ak01.html 
>September
>19, 2006).
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and Europe.
>
>
>
>Over the last few years the Bush regime has tried to foist two adverse
>policies upon European governments concerning their fossil fuel imports.
>
>
>
>Firstly, it has been trying to persuade European countries to adopt a
>common
>policy over Russia's export of fossil fuels to Europe. Obviously if
>European
>governments acted together as a single consumer this would give them much
>greater advantages when negotiating with Russia over its energy exports
>than
>if they all individually strike bilateral deals with Russia. But America
>has
>failed to persuade Europe to act in concert and, as a consequence, Russia
>is
>doing deals with each European country separately to its great financial
>and
>political benefit.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn19> [19]
>
>
>
>Putin has already concluded a major energy deal with Germany, "Putin
>underlined the strategic significance of the Russian-German partnership by
>saying, «We are linked by the common goals of building a unified and
>prosperous Europe, dedication to the principles of building a just world
>order, and the aim of effectively countering international challenges and
>threats.»" (M K Bhadrakumar 'Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006).
>Putin got the deal he wanted because it allows Russian companies to play a
>role in Germany's domestic energy markets. "And last Thursday, Russia's
>Gazprom and Germany's E.ON AG signed a framework agreement to swap assets
>in
>production, trade and sale of natural gas and relating to power industry.
>Gazprom will acquire the German company's stakes in gas companies in
>Hungary
>as well as in regional electricity and gas companies in return for Russia
>providing access to E.ON AG to Russia's Yuzhno-Russkoye deposits in the
>Tyumen region, which holds more than a trillion cubic meters of natural gas
>and will be the source for the US$10.5 billion North European Gas Pipeline
>project." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The rise and rise of Russia'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG20Ag01.html  July 20, 2006).
>
>
>
>What made this deal even sweeter for Putin is that it punishes Poland for
>its slavish devotion to the Bush regime. "Sikorski was voicing Warsaw's
>complaint that German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored Polish pleas to
>scrap
>the US$10.5 billion trans-Baltic North European Pipeline project with
>Russia, which was negotiated by her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder - a
>project that would cement Berlin's energy ties to Moscow but bypass Poland
>and the Baltic states. Planned in the early 1990s after the collapse of the
>Soviet Union, the gas-pipeline project was intended to reduce Russia's
>dependence on having to transit through such countries as Belarus and
>Ukraine to export its gas to Europe. The 1,200-kilometer line would
>transport gas from Russia's Baltic Sea coast through international waters
>offshore Poland and the Baltic states to a landfall in Griefswald on
>Germany's coast." (M K Bhadrakumar 'Germany, Russia redraw Europe's
>frontiers' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE03Ad01.html  May 3, 2006).
>
>
>
>Hungary and Italy have also concluded deals with Russia. "Meanwhile, Russia
>is also going ahead with forging bilateral energy deals with European
>countries. An agreement was signed on June 22 with Hungary for the
>extension
>of Russia's Blue Stream gas pipeline to Central Europe. Italy has dealt an
>even more severe blow to Washington by concluding a significant energy deal
>bilaterally with Russia on the eve of the G8 summit." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The
>G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html  July 6, 2006).
>
>
>
>Even worse for Europe is that if Putin succeeds in buying up some of the
>oil
>pipelines that export Iran's fossil fuels to Europe then Russia will have
>even more leverage over Europe's fossil fuel imports. "Significantly, on
>January 23, the Russian daily Kommersant reported that Armenia, sandwiched
>between Iran and Georgia, had agreed to sell a 45% control of its
>Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia's Gazprom. The Russian daily added, «If
>Russia takes over this [Iran-Armenia] pipeline, Russia will be able to
>control transit of Iranian gas to Georgia, Ukraine and Europe.»" (F William
>Engdahl 'A high-risk game of nuclear chicken'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html  Jan 31, 2006). If
>Russia acquires these pipelines then even if there is a future
>reconciliation between Iran and America/Europe, it might be too late to
>reverse the shift in the balance of power between America/Europe and
>Russia.
>
>
>
>
>Worse still for Europe is that Russia's negotiating position with the
>European continent is growing stronger since it started constructing oil
>pipelines to the Pacific. It has made it obvious that if Europe is not
>willing to buy Russia's fossil fuels on its terms then it will sell them to
>China, Japan and other Asian countries. "It has threatened Europe with
>accelerated diversification of its exports to the East if Europe fails to
>open its markets to rapidly advancing Russian investment and acquisition of
>downstream assets." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Part 2: Corporate gigantism'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI26Ag01.html  September 26,
>2006).
>
>
>
>The second policy America has pressured Europe into adopting is reducing
>purchases of Iranian fossil fuels. For European countries this policy has
>serious negative implications but it is even more self-destructive in
>combination with the first policy. America is demanding that Europe limits
>its imports of fossil fuels from both Russia and Iran. It might be possible
>for Europe to implement one of these policies but to implement both at the
>same time would be a nightmare.
>
>
>
>If America had a strategic alliance with Iran then the Europeans could have
>used the supply of Iranian fossil fuels as a counterweight to resist
>excessive Russian demands resulting from its increasingly monopolistic
>position over energy supplies to Europe. This has not been possible because
>of America's hostility to Iran. As a consequence, Europe is undermining its
>own interests by failing to encourage imports of Iranian fossil fuels.
>"Enno
>Harks, a senior fellow on energy and resources at the German Institute for
>International and Security Affairs, and Friedmann Muller, head of the
>research group Global Issues at the same institute, were both in Tehran
>recently for an energy conference. Their studies and conclusions are
>important to understanding what's at stake in the convoluted relationship
>between the European Union and Iran and how ostracizing and sanctioning
>Iran
>may turn out to be yet another case of the EU shooting itself in the foot."
>(Pepe Escobar 'Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html  May 9, 2006); 
>"It's
>going to be an extremely tricky affair. The EU is actively trying to
>explore
>deals with Central Asia - with both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - and also
>with Iran, bypassing Russia via the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. The
>key project in this Pipelineistan node is the proposed trans-Caspian
>gasoduct - which would in effect break Russia's monopoly on transit of
>Central Asian gas." (Pepe Escobar 'The Gazprom Nation'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html  May 26, 2006).
>
>
>
>America is trying to deter European countries from exploiting Iranian
>fossil
>fuels but all that this policy achieves is undermining Europe's negotiating
>position with Russia. It is in effect driving European countries into an
>even closer embrace with the Russians.
>
>
>
>The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and China.
>
>
>
>Iran could play an even more valuable role on America's behalf in
>confronting the growing geostrategic significance of the Asian continent
>i.e. the increasing political and military co-operation between Russia and
>China. But America's Jewish-induced hostility to Iran is pushing Iran even
>further into collaboration with these countries at America's expense.
>Russia
>and China seem to appreciate Iran's geostrategic assets far more than the
>Bush regime which is blinded by Jewish anti-American propaganda. America
>could use Iran as a vital counterweight to both Russia and China but, since
>it has chosen to throw away this asset, China and Russia are using Iran to
>boost their power at America's expense. Not only has America forsaken
>Iranian help in boosting its global interests, its hostility towards Iran
>is
>driving the country into a closer relationship with Russia and China which
>will enable these three countries to increase their global power at the
>expense of America and Europe. America's treatment of Iran is self
>destructive - driving the country into the camp of its biggest rivals -
>both
>of whom America is also antagonizing! It is bizarre, and highly revealing,
>that the only country in the world which America is not going out of its
>way
>to antagonize and abuse is the Jewish state. America's hostility towards
>virtually every country around the world is in stark contrast to its
>grovelling subservience to the Jewish state.
>
>
>
>7. The Greater Iran's Strategic Value the more that America treats it with
>Contempt.
>
>
>
>Iran's geostrategic stature has soared as Putin has transformed Russia into
>a fossil fuel superpower. And yet the Bush regime's hostility towards Iran
>(and Russia) has increased dramatically.
>
>
>
>America is still faced by the same choice with which it was confronted
>after
>Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. It can either try to woo Iran because of
>its
>geostrategic importance or it can continue its belligerent policies to
>isolate Iran from what remains of the American-allied world in order to
>bring about regime change. Michael Klare mentions some of the temptations
>of
>the latter approach - and in doing so highlights Iran's strategic
>importance. "For Washington, the replacement of the clerical government in
>Tehran with a U.S.-friendly regime would represent a colossal, threefold
>accomplishment: It would eliminate a major threat to America's continued
>dominance of the Persian Gulf, open up the world's number two oil-and-gas
>supplier to American energy firms, and greatly diminish Chinese and Russian
>influence in the greater Gulf region." (Michael T. Klare 'Putting Iran in
>Great Power Context' http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150 June
>16, 2006). However, America's regime change tactic is self defeating since
>the more propaganda pressure America applies to Iran, the more it alienates
>the Iranian people, thereby reducing the likely success of regime change.
>Iranians still remember that in 1953 America destroyed their democratic
>system and imposed Pahlavi's brutal regime upon them. It is true that many
>Iranians born after the Islamic revolution admired America in many ways but
>since America's utterly barbaric occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq they've
>lost all respect for it. "While most Iranians welcomed the elimination of
>Saddam, the horrors inflicted and unleashed by US military forces next door
>have left many of the old rich in Tehran with the realization that the
>dream
>of American intervention may turn into a nightmare. My trip convinced me
>that support for US intervention does not exist to any significant degree
>but rather resides solely in the minds of those in the West who have had
>their impressions of Iran shaped by pro-Shah expatriates who have been
>absent from the country for more than a quarter-century." (Scott Ritter
>'The
>Case for Engagement' http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/ritter  November
>03, 2006). The overwhelming majority of Iranians bitterly resent America
>telling them they cannot develop civil nuclear power. They even find it
>unreasonable to be told they can't have nuclear weapons - like their
>neighbours. "The country is not only ringed by atomic states (India,
>Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel), it also faces a string of American bases
>with potential or actual nuclear stockpiles in Qatar, Iraq, Turkey,
>Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear-armed US aircraft carriers and
>submarines patrol the waters off its southern coast." (Tariq Ali
>'High-Octane Rocket-Rattling Against Tehran Won't Work'
>http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq05112006.html  May 11, 2006).
>
>
>
>During Pahlavi's reign Iran had a substantially greater geostrategic value
>than the Jewish state. American politicians appreciated that their national
>interests were best served by an alliance with Iran rather than with the
>Jewish state. However, since 1967 an American alliance with Israel became
>more popular and after 1979 America's alliance with Israel became one of
>its
>most important in the region. American Jews thus have a vested interest in
>denouncing Iran, discrediting Iran in the eyes of the American public, to
>protect America's alliance with Israel. Overwhelmed by Jewish propaganda
>and
>by Jewish bribes, America's wasp politicians have been manipulated into
>ignoring their country's national interests by aligning their foreign
>policies with Israel rather than Iran.
>
>
>
>Today, the superiority of Iran's geostrategic value over that of Israel' is
>even greater than it was during Pahlavi's time and yet Jewish anti-Iranian
>propaganda has so poisoned Americans against Iran that virtually no
>mainstream politician advocates talking with Iran let alone forming an
>alliance with it. Americans are so blinded by the Jewish parasites who
>infect them, they no longer see their own national interests and make no
>attempt to woo Iran. The only way that America could reap the vast
>geostrategic benefits of an alliance with Iran is by ridding itself of the
>Jewish state's parasitic influence. America's Jewish elite continues to
>churn out an endless stream of scandalous accusations against Iran. It must
>at all costs prevent Americans from realizing their national interests
>because this would lead them to dumping the Jewish state for a far more
>fruitful relationship with Iran. Odom outlines the bare minimum of a new
>American alliance with Iran .. "the U.S. must informally cooperate with
>Iran
>in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in
>the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S.
>resistance
>to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S.
>leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's because
>we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat Al
>Qaeda and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq
>(Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we
>do, but neither Washington nor Tehran want chaos). And we can help each
>other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil,
>and we simply need more oil." (William E. Odom 'How to cut and run'
>http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes527.html  October 31,
>2006). Bush's new secretary of defence Robert gates once noted Iran's value
>to America, "In a 100-page report for the Council on Foreign Relations,
>entitled Iran: Time for a New Approach, written in 2004, he argued that
>isolating Teheran was «manifestly harmful to Washington's interests»." (Kay
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3XP1NWCXIANTHQFIQMGCF
>FOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/12/wIran12.xml> Biouki and Harry De
>Quetteville 'Iran offers to arm enemies of Israel with rocket arsenal'
>November 12, 2006); "(Robert Gates) has publicly urged for more than a year
>that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran." (Seymour M. Hersh 'The Next
>Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?'
>http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact November 20, 2006).
>
>
>
>If the world was a rational place, it would make much more sense for
>America
>to threaten war against the Jewish state until it abolishes its nuclear
>weapons rather than America continuing with its current catastrophic
>foreign
>policies which are leading it inexorably towards a war against Iran.
>
>
>
>8. The apparent focus of America's Foreign Policies on Oil is a Cover for
>the pursuit of Global Jewish Interests.
>
>
>
>Most liberal and left wing political commentators argue that America's
>foreign policies are almost wholly determined by the economic interests of
>the country's multinational energy corporations. They believe America
>invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to get access to their fossil fuels. Liberal
>realists proclaim such policies as legitimate whilst left wingers denounce
>them. This article has highlighted the importance of fossil fuels in global
>politics. It has assumed that if American politicians were implementing
>foreign policies based on America's short term national interests then the
>promotion of the country's multinational energy corporations would be near
>the top of its agenda. But it has been concluded that the fossil fuel
>hypothesis simply does not explain America's current foreign policies.
>These
>policies diverge fundamentally from those it would be following if it
>intended to maximize the interests of the country's multinational energy
>corporations.
>
>
>
>Firstly, America believes in the free market. It shouldn't matter to
>America
>who owns fossil fuels as long as they are placed on global markets and
>prices kept low. If American energy companies can get involved in the
>exploration and production of fossil fuels around the world this is an
>additional economic benefit. But clearly, America's foreign policies go far
>beyond protecting the free market. It has been concerned to ensure that the
>vast fossil fuel revenues accumulated by Arab countries is not used to buy
>weapons to defend themselves from attack by America's cuckoo strategic
>ally.
>If America was concerned about its oil industry it wouldn't bother what oil
>producing countries were doing with their oil revenues but, in reality, all
>that America is bothered about is ruining the economies of oil producing
>countries which pose a threat to the Jewish state.
>
>
>
>Secondly, in 1995 America banned its gigantic multi-national energy
>companies from investing in Iran's fossil fuel industry. This policy runs
>counter to America's economic and national interests. Indeed, from
>America's
>perspective this policy makes no sense at all. It was imposed because of
>Iran's alleged terrorist activities. But such a rationale was absurd.
>Firstly, America was punishing its own energy companies for the alleged
>terrorist activities of another country. Secondly, because these
>allegations
>have never been substantiated. Thirdly, because of the negligible scale of
>the alleged terrorism. And, finally, because the punishment on American
>energy companies was completely disproportionate to the crimes alleged to
>have been committed. Here was the world's greatest economic power banning
>its gigantic fossil fuel multi-national corporations from investing in
>Iran,
>thereby throwing away tens of billions of dollars in profits, just because
>of unsubstantiated allegations of Iran's involvement in minor acts of
>terrorism. Whilst this policy blatantly runs counter to the interests of
>America's wasps, it makes perfect sense from the perspective of America's
>ruling Jewish elite which wanted to ensure that America did not develop a
>close relationship with Iran which would undermine its relationship with
>the
>Jewish state. It is not surprising then that it was America's Jewish ruling
>elite which was solely responsible for hyping up terrorist allegations
>against Iran.
>
>
>
>In the 1970s and the 1980s, the Jewish neocons made scandalous,
>fantastical,
>unsubstantiated allegations that Russia was developing highly
>sophisticated,
>technologically advanced, weapons of mass destruction against which America
>had no defences and that it was also involved in terrorist activities
>around
>the world to promote its interests. After the collapse of the soviet
>empire,
>these Jewish extremists simply transferred these allegations to Saddam
>Hussein and Iraq. They alleged that Saddam had wmds and was funding al
>Qaeda
>to carry out acts of terrorism against American interests around the world.
>After the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, these
>lunatics once again transposed these same accusations to yet another
>country
>i.e. Iran. The belligerent, paranoid, Jewish fundamentalists who promoted
>wild, unsubstantiated, accusations of Russian wmd and who denounced Russia
>for conspiring to promote global terrorism, are the same lunatics who, in
>the 1990s, made exactly the same allegations against Iraq and who today are
>repeating these same allegation against Iran! Before he became a Jew-ish
>neocon, Dick Cheney spoke for the interests of the country's energy
>industry
>when he denounced Clinton's ban on American energy companies' investing in
>Iran which had been imposed under pressure from the Jewish lobby.
>
>
>
>Thirdly, after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Jewish oligarchs gained
>control over the majority of Russia's largest industries and proceeded to
>ransack the country's natural resources. During this time virtually no
>American Jews, whether in the Jewish lobby, the media, or politics, made
>any
>criticism of these scandalous events. However, since Putin routed the worst
>of Russia's Jewish oligarchs, American Jews have embarked on a massive
>media
>campaign to denounce Putin's democratic credentials in the hope of bringing
>about regime change thereby restoring the criminal Jewish oligarchs to
>power. The consequence of this torrent of Jewish abuse towards Putin has
>been that Putin has given no contracts to America's multi-national energy
>corporations to exploit Russia's fossil fuel resources. "Plainly speaking,
>Gazprom's decision on Shtokman implies that as of today there are no major
>plans on the anvil in the Russian energy sector aimed at the US market.
>This
>is a dismal legacy for the Bush administration, which is supposed to be
>tied
>to the US oil industry by the umbilical cord." (M K Bhadrakumar 'Russian
>energy: Europe's pride, US's envy'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006).
>Yet again, America's Jewish fundamentalists have pushed America into acting
>against its own interests for the benefit of a Jewish elite which believes
>it is entitled to rule Russia.
>
>
>
>Yet again, the parallels between the Bush regime's attitude toward Iran and
>its attitude towards Russia are stark. Bush has shown little but
>belligerence towards both countries even though it is in America's
>interests
>to treat them as allies who will allow America's multi-national fossil fuel
>companies to exploit their fossil fuels. In both cases, Bush's belligerence
>has resulted in America's energy companies being unable to exploit these
>country's fossil fuels. In both cases, America's Jewish elite, in
>conjunction with the Jewish dominated media and the Jewish lobby, have made
>scandalous, entirely fictitious, accusations against both countries for
>allegedly acquiring wmds and conspiring to promote global terrorism when
>there has been not the slightest evidence for such allegations. In both
>cases, Jewish propaganda has resulted in America's energy companies losing
>out on highly lucrative energy deals.
>
>
>
>Fourthly, the belief that it is possible for a country to invade another
>speckled with fossil fuel facilities in order to steal its resources is
>absurd. Even the most avaricious politicians, as long as they are sane and
>rational, cannot fail to appreciate that sending Bulls to guard china shops
>is self-defeating. ".. the failure in Iraq where, as Anthony Cordesman, the
>US strategist and supporter of the war, recently observed: "we essentially
>used a bull to liberate a china shop"." (David Gardner 'Misplaying the
>Islamic power game'
>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ee3f892c-289e-11db-a2c1-0000779e2340.html August 10
>2006). <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn20>
>[20] Fighting wars in the middle of a country with a large number of fossil
>fuel facilities and an extensive network of gas and oil pipelines is not
>merely irrational but insane.
>
>
>
>In what must be one of the most predicable outcomes in modern history,
>America's invasion of Iraq has resulted in less oil being exported from
>that
>country than during Saddam's time. What is more, the amount of oil that
>America has expended in invading and occupying Iraq is probably not that
>much different from the amount of oil it was hoping to steal from Iraq. The
>cost of invading Iraq has been far in excess of how much it would have
>spent
>buying oil from Iraq if it had not invaded the country.
>
>
>
>America's energy companies were not in favour of the invasion of Iraq. It
>is
>quite true that some have profited considerably from the rise in fossil
>fuel
>prices as a result of the chaos brought about by America's two invasions
>but
>if they had had a motive for invading it would have been to keep down the
>price of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel producing countries/companies do not
>like
>high oil prices. High prices may provide a short term bonanza, a profits'
>windfall, but over the long term they are against the interests of the
>fossil fuel industry since they speed up the switch to alternative energy.
>Over the last few decades Saudi Arabia has deliberately kept global fossil
>fuel prices as low as was necessary to make it uneconomical for
>industrialists to invest in alternative forms of energy. The higher the
>price of fossil fuels, the greater the incentive there is for
>environmentalists to usher in alternative forms of energy.
>
>
>
>It is true that, as a result of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,
>American oil companies are now in the best position to gain control of
>these
>countries' fossil fuel industries. "This is the point of the US invasion -
>a
>return on investment on the hundreds of billions of dollars of US
>taxpayers'
>money spent. It's not war as politics by other means; it's war as
>free-market opening by other means - full US access to the epicentre of the
>energy wars and the perfect geostrategic location for «taming», in the near
>future, both Russia and China. US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman duly
>landed
>in Baghdad this past summer, insisting that Iraqis must «pass a hydrocarbon
>law under which foreign companies can invest». Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein
>al-Shahristani was convinced, and said the law would be passed by the end
>of
>2006, as promised to the IMF." (Pepe Escobar 'Stability First': Newspeak
>for
>rape of Iraq' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ27Ak03.html
>October
>27, 2006). But in reality being in 'the best position to expropriate these
>countries' resources' means nothing. Iraqis/Afghanis are now closer to
>removing the American military from their countries, than America's fossil
>fuel companies are to gaining control over these resources. The basic
>conditions which multi-national fossil fuel corporations need in order to
>maximize their interests are peace and stability not war and chaos.
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn21> [21]
>
>
>
>Fifthly, if the Bush regime had invaded Afghanistan for oil it would not
>have neglected the country to such an extent as to allow the Taliban to
>reassert itself making it impossible to carry out any further work on oil
>exploration and distribution. "The Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) has
>disappeared from view - obliterated by the Taliban resurgence - but the
>project remains in the cards, although the realistic prospects are grim,
>according to Seyed Shah Bukhari of the Institute of Strategic Studies in
>Islamabad." (Pepe Escobar 'In the heart of Pipelineistan'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak03.html  March 17, 2006).
>Juan Cole, a traditional, centre left, apostle of the hypothesis that
>America's foreign policies are designed to promote the interests of the
>country's energy companies, informs us that Afghanistan is "especially
>important to Washington" and then the next moment that it is not important
>enough to ensure peace and stability. Surely this logical contradiction
>indicates that oil is not as central to the Bush regime as it is alleged to
>be. "Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it is the
>only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to Pakistan
>and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push Delhi away
>from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline. As Afghanistan falls again
>into substantial chaos, India is being forced to reconsider, and to seek to
>draw on Iran's Yadavan fields, with a pipeline coming down through
>Pakistani
>Baluchistan and over to the Indian border. The turn for the worst in
>Afghanistan may explain the sudden warming of relations between Delhi and
>Tehran." (Juan Cole 'The Iraqization of Afghanistan'
>http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html  September 08,
>2006); "By deserting Afghanistan to run off to war in Iraq, Bush ensured
>that it would risk falling again into social turbulence, and thus helped
>seal the fate of the Turkmenistan pipeline through Herat (wouldn't the
>Taliban just blow it up?). In turn, that may have ensured that Iran would
>be
>able to sidestep US sanctions by dealing, not only with China, but also
>with
>India. And that may mean that Bush let the big fish get away by getting
>bogged down in Iraq, which is turning out not to be any prize for him,
>either." (Juan Cole 'The Iraqization of Afghanistan'
>http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html  September 08,
>2006). <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn22>
>[22] If the Bush regime was so concerned about promoting the interests of
>its energy companies it would have consolidated its position in Afghanistan
>rather than risking everything on a military adventure in Iraq. The only
>reason America invaded Iraq was because Jewish pressure overpowered the
>interests of America's energy companies.
>
>
>
>Sixthly, many left wing commentators regard Cheney as the real president
>rather than the imbecilic Bush. They deduce that since Cheney had been
>heavily involved in America's energy industry then he must be promoting
>foreign policies to boost its interests. F William Engdahl outlines this
>aspect of the oil hypothesis. "The «Cheney presidency», which is what
>historians will no doubt dub the George W Bush years, has been based on a
>clear strategy. It has often been misunderstood by critics who had overly
>focussed on its most visible component, namely, Iraq, the Middle East and
>the strident war-hawks around the vice president and his old crony, Defence
>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The «Cheney strategy» has been a US foreign
>policy based on securing direct global energy control, control by the Big
>Four US or US-tied private oil giants - Chevron Texaco or Exxon Mobil, BP
>or
>Royal Dutch Shell." (F William Engdahl 'The Emerging Russian Giant, Part 1:
>Moscow plays its cards strategically'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ25Ag01.html  October 25, 2006).
>
>
>
>Engdahl's rationalization of Cheney's support for the invasion of Iraq is
>as
>follows. "At that time, Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves after
>Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, was under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
>Iran,
>which has the world's second-largest reserves of natural gas, in addition
>to
>its huge oil reserves, was ruled by a nationalist theocracy which was not
>open to US private company oil tenders. The Caspian Sea oil reserves were a
>subject of bitter geopolitical battle between Washington and Russia.
>Cheney's remark that «Oil remains fundamentally a government business», and
>not private, takes on a new significance when we do a fast forward to
>September 2000, in the heat of the Bush-Gore election campaign. That month
>Cheney, along with Rumsfeld and many others who went on to join the new
>Bush
>administration, issued a policy report titled, «Rebuilding America's
>Defenses». The paper was issued by an entity named Project for the New
>American Century (PNAC). Cheney's PNAC group called on the new US
>president-to-be to find a suitable pretext to declare war on Iraq, in order
>to occupy it and take direct control over the second-largest oil reserves
>in
>the Middle East." (F William Engdahl 'The Emerging Russian Giant, Part 1:
>Moscow plays its cards strategically'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ25Ag01.html  October 25, 2006).
>
>
>
>But Cheney is no more of a determinant of America's foreign policies than
>Bush. After his defeat in 1995 at the hands of the Jewish lobby over the
>banning of fossil fuel industry's investments in Iran, Cheney knew he would
>never advance his political career merely by promoting the fossil fuel
>industry. He could succeed only by becoming a neocon which is why he signed
>up to PNAC and became one of their leading political advocates promoting
>Jewish foreign policies. PNAC's sole interest was boosting the JOS's
>military supremacy in the Middle East. Cheney's hope was that America's
>fossil fuel industry could take advantage of any opportunities opened up by
>what fundamentally would be the Bush regime's Jewish foreign policies.
>Cheney went along with Jewish neocons' plan because he did not have the
>power to stop them and simply hoped, vulture- like, that America's energy
>industry could make as much profit as they could from whatever ensued
>during
>the supposed transformation of the greater Middle East. If Cheney had been
>concerned primarily about the interests of America's fossil fuel industry
>he
>would have ensured the invasion of Afghanistan was benefiting America's
>energy companies before supporting an invasion of Iraq.
>
>
>
>Seventhly, if America's foreign policies were primarily concerned with
>boosting the country's fossil fuel industry then, given a choice about
>which
>oil-rich, Middle Eastern country to invade, it should have chosen Iran
>rather than Iraq. This is because it possessed far more energy reserves and
>had a far greater geostrategic value than Iraq. And yet the Jewish
>dominated
>Bush regime went after Iraq first. The reason for this was because it posed
>a much bigger military threat to the Jewish state than Iran.
>
>
>
>Finally, and most critically, if America was concerned with pursuing its
>national interests, maximizing the interests of the country's fossil fuel
>industry, then by far and away its most important policy would have been
>the
>establishment of an alliance with Iran rather than the Jewish state or
>Saudi
>Arabia. This is because Iran possesses vast fossil fuel, and considerable
>uranium, deposits; it occupies a critical geographical position for the
>export of fossil fuels from the Caspian sea area; it could challenge
>Russian
>domination of fossil fuel supplies to Europe; it could challenge increasing
>Russian dominance over the world's fossil fuel resources; and, finally, it
>could undermine the growing power of the Russian-Chinese military and
>political alliance. If America was intent on securing its oil supplies,
>dominating the world's fossil fuel industry, and using fossil fuel politics
>to promote its global power then it would have looked to Iran as its
>primary
>ally in the Middle East. It needs to be re-emphasized that although Saudi
>Arabia may export more fossil fuels than Iran, Iran is far more
>geostrategically important than Saudi Arabia. America's failure to develop
>an alliance with Iran is proof that its foreign policies have been hijacked
>by the country's ruling Jewish elite which is concerned solely with
>boosting
>the regional supremacy of the Jewish state even if this takes place at the
>expense of America's national interests.
>
>
>
>Paradoxically, it is the oil hypothesis itself which exposes the fact that
>America's foreign policies are concerned about enhancing the Jewish state's
>regional supremacism not maximizing America's oil interests. If America was
>following an oil based foreign policy its main focus would have been an
>alliance with Iran rather than with Saudi Arabia or the Jewish state.
>
>
>
>Liberal and left wing political commentators, despite all the evidence to
>the contrary, continually insist that America's foreign policies are
>concerned with the interests of its energy corporations. This fantasy is
>also promoted by the Jewish state's political agents throughout the western
>world who seek to provide a smokescreen for the power of America's Jewish
>elite which implements foreign policies boosting the interests of the
>Jewish
>state rather than America. It is not just a coincidence that so many of the
>liberal and left wing commentators promoting this fantasy are Jewish. The
>belief that America is pursuing an oil based foreign policy is an illusion
>conjured up by neo-liberals and neo-lefties who refuse to confront the
>reality of Jewish power in America and around the world. "Pressure from
>Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to
>attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element.  Some Americans
>believe that this was a "war for oil," but there is hardly any direct
>evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part
>by a desire to make Israel more secure." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen
>M.
>Walt 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March
>2006 p.30).
><http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_edn23> [23]
>
>
>
>9. The Rise of Iran in Global Politics.
>
>
>
>Russia's newly-acquired status as a fossil fuel superpower would be
>enhanced
>considerably by an alliance with Iran just as, conversely, it would be
>undermined by an Iranian alliance with America. In the realm of global
>politics, Iran is gradually emerging as the pivot which will determine who
>comes out on top of the power struggle between America and the Asian bloc
>of
>Russia/China and their allies. If Iran joins America then America could
>consolidate its position as leader of the new world order but, if it joins
>the Russian/Chinese bloc, then they will emerge as the new global leaders.
>If America wants to remain the world's hyperpower it must forge an alliance
>with Iran. But to do this it must sacrifice its support for the Jewish
>state.
>
>
>
>The Jewish state is responsible for inflicting a succession of increasingly
>catastrophic economic and military disasters upon America which is
>undermining America's position as the world's hyperpower. The longer the
>Jewish state and America's ruling Jewish elite continue to manipulate
>America into demonizing Iran, the more they will undermine America's global
>dominance. "By incessant strategic blunders, the US has isolated itself
>internationally and fanned the fires of global anti-Americanism, which
>increasingly engulf the very regions where its own resources-based
>strategic
>interests lie." (W Joseph Stroupe 'Russia spins global energy spider's web'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  Aug 25, 2006).
>
>
>
>America did not become a hyperpower because Israel was America's strategic
>asset in the Middle East. On the contrary, it became a hyperpower in spite
>of its alliance with Israel. Israel has been ruining American interests in
>the region on an increasingly catastrophic scale. This sabotaging of
>American interests cannot last. Israel's manipulation of America into
>demonizing Iran will provoke a regional war that will be so catastrophic as
>to bring about the collapse of America's hyperpower status. The Jewish
>state, and its Jewish fifth columnists in America, will have inflicted
>their
>last catastrophe upon America for it to survive as the world's number one
>power.
>
>
>
>America's ruling Jewish elite have forced America to turn its back on its
>own national interests i.e. an alliance with Iran that benefits from the
>country's immense geostrategic value, for the sake of supporting the Jewish
>state which has no oil and a negligible strategic value. But America's
>alliance with the Jewish state is even more bizarre considering that the
>Jewish state has inflicted on America a series of increasingly devastating
>military and economic disasters. America has suffered one Jewish-lobbied
>disaster after another and yet such is the power of the Jewish dominated
>media that they've managed to persuade the American public that these have
>not been disasters, that they have not been the fault of the Jewish lobby,
>and that the Jewish state is America's most unwaveringly loyal ally despite
>having done nothing for America. It seems as if America's Jewish elite can
>promote as many anti-American policies as their heart desires and still
>have
>enough political power to manipulate members of congress into supporting
>them and enough media power to continually deceive Americans into believing
>that these policies are in their interests.
>
>
>
>Jewish interests have come to predominate in American politics to the
>detriment of America's national i.e. oil, interests and, as a consequence,
>America is being trounced by Russia in the world's oil game. If Americans
>want to remain a hyperpower they must dump the hysterical, paranoid,
>psychotically belligerent, Jews who are solely concerned with triggering
>off
>endless wars in the Middle East and beyond solely for the benefit of Jewish
>supremacism.
>
>
>
>America's threatened invasion of Iran runs counter to America's national
>interests and, if it proceeds, will have a catastrophic impact on these
>interests. It will also have a catastrophic impact on Europe's national
>interests. And yet neither America nor Europe are powerful enough to
>dismiss
>the twaddle of Jewish propaganda and insist that their interests would be
>better served by an alliance with Iran rather than with Israel. Jewish
>elites around the world must have some colossal global power if they can
>force America and Europe to undermine their own national interests for the
>greater good of the Jewish state and the global Jewish empire. The modern
>day parable of the cave is that the Jewish dominated media and Jewish
>dominated think tanks have replaced reality with a Hollywood fantasy which
>serves Jewish interests and all those intellectually entrapped in this
>Jewish spectacle are unable to perceive their own true interest.
>
>Notes:
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref1> [1]
>Israel refused Bush's request for Israel to attack Syria during Israel's
>unprovoked war against Lebanon in July 2006. The Bush regime made it clear
>that it wanted Israel to extend the war to Syria but Israel refused to
>comply. "In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service provided additional
>details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush's deputy
>national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in
>the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. "In a meeting with a very senior
>Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection
>if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor,
>leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria," a
>source told the Inter-Press Service. In December 2006, Meyrav Wurmser, a
>leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice
>President Cheney, confirmed that neocons in and outside the Bush
>administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of
>undermining
>the insurgents in Iraq. "If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq
>would have ended," Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of
>the
>Ynet Web site. "A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight
>against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. . If Israel had hit
>Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have
>weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East."" (Robert
>Parry 'A Very Dangerous New Year'
>http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122006.html  December 21, 2006). Why
>should the Jewish state attack Syria and risk severe military retaliation
>when it is likely to persuade America to attack Syria?
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref2> [2]
>This is the first time that America's foreign policies contribute to the
>religious radicalization of the greater Middle East - what Hannah Arendt
>called the boomerang effect of imperialism, "Had the U.S. not overthrown
>the
>Mossadegh regime in Iran in 1954 it is very likely the mullahs would never
>have come to power and we would not now be considering a dangerous war
>there." (Gabriel Kolko "As an Economic System, Capitalism is Going Crazy"
>http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko11252006.html  November 25/26, 2006); "By
>installing Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as shah to replace Mossadegh, the US
>condemned the Iranian people to a quarter-century of tyranny and repression
>that eventually strengthened extremist Islamic fundamentalism and gave
>birth
>to theocratic revolution led by ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979."
>(Henry
>C K Liu 'Regime-change blowback'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK11Ak02.html  Nov 11, 2006).
>Today, America's foreign policies in the greater Middle East are
>overwhelmingly directed at trying to undo the damage caused by its policies
>decades earlier - although all that these policies are achieving is to make
>matters even worse for future administrations.
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref3> [3]
>See also, "The second example is that of Iran. That country approached the
>United States with a promise to cooperate prior to the latter's invasion of
>Afghanistan. In fact, Iran offered to cooperate with the Bush
>administration
>in case of any air mishaps and offered to conduct search-and-rescue
>operations for US pilots under such circumstances. Within a matter of weeks
>after that attempted rapprochement by the Iranians, President Bush made his
>infamous State of the Union speech that lumped Iran, North Korea and Iraq
>together as part of an "axis of evil", thereby conclusively alienating
>Iran." (Ehsan Ahrari 'Father, son and Holy Ghost'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL12Ak01.html  December 12, 2006).
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref4> [4]
>The Jewish dominated western media is currently covering up the critical
>help that Iran provided for America during the invasions of Afghanistan and
>Iraq. It is rewriting history in order to prepare the western public for an
>American attack on Iran. "The atmosphere between the two countries (America
>and Iran) improved marginally under former President Mohammad Khatami, who
>encouraged athletic and cultural exchanges. But it deteriorated after the
>Sept. 11 attacks when President Bush declared that Iran belonged to an
>"axis
>of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." (Ali Akbar
>Dareini 'Iran responds to U.S. fingerprinting law'
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/Iran_us  December 02,
>2006).
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref5> [5]
>See also, "Iran's shared interest with the US in maintaining the new status
>quo in Iraq." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi 'US sends the wrong messages to Iran'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ25Ak01.html  Oct 25, 2006);
>"Iran
>has enormous influence over the Badr brigade, which was trained by the
>Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and they could bring a lot of pressure to
>bear
>on Hakim, and Moqtada Sadr, to rein in the death squads. If Baker suggests
>talking to Iran, that would make a lot of sense. The U.S. interest in Iraq
>and Iran's interests in Iraq are actually congruent. The idea that Iran is
>being unhelpful or is somehow helping the Sunni insurgency has no basis in
>reality. Tehran does not want Iraq to break up: They're as worried as
>Turkey
>is about the Kurds becoming independent. They want a united Iraq, a
>democratic Iraq in which the Shi'ites' majority makes itself felt. They
>obviously want their preferred Shiite leaders, such as Maliki and Hakim, to
>be in power, rather than, for example, a former Baathist Shi'ite such as
>Iyad Allawi [the former prime minister installed by the U.S.], or Moqtada
>Sadr, who is viewed by Iran as a loose cannon who they would prefer to see
>marginalized. Tehran is even willing to see the Sunnis given more power in
>Iraq in order to help keep the country together. So, the U.S. and Iran
>actually want many of the same things in Iraq, and it makes perfect sense
>for them to cooperate. It's a self-defeating policy of the Bush
>administration to fail to recognize Iran as a tacit ally in Iraq." (Juan
>Cole quoted in Tony Karon 'Why Iraq's Leader Balks at U.S. Demands'
>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1551743,00.html  October 27,
>2006); "In the run-up to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,
>it is a publicly known and officially acknowledged fact the Iran supported
>the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, provided intelligence to the US,
>advised
>and supported Shia co-operation in the formation of a US client regime,
>recognized and established formal relations with the puppet regime despite
>its collaboration with the killers of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
>civilians. Iran has been a major bulwark against Al Qaeda, arresting and in
>some cases offering to extradite them to the West, thus showing a decided
>partisanship to some aspects of the US 'War on Terrorism'." (James Petras
>'The US and the Middle East: A "Grand Settlement" Versus the Jewish Lobby'
>December 2006).
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref6> [6]
>During Yeltsin's presidency, the Jewish oligarchs who'd taken control of
>vast slabs of the Russian economy made a determined effort to bypass the
>country's state owned pipeline network. "At a Russia-American oil summit
>held in Houston in late 2002, an agreement was signed to build a pipeline
>from the rich oil fields in western Siberia to Murmansk, where it could be
>easily shipped to the US. The pipeline was to be Russia's first private
>consortium, and Yukos was essentially going to lead it. This was it, the
>first big play to free up Russian oil from Kremlin control, and get it to
>the US." (Mark Ames 'How Dick Cheney Got His Cold War On A Cold War
>Timetable' http://www.exile.ru/2006-May-19/the_cold_war_timeline.html
>May19,
>2006). Putin prevented this from happening only at the very last minute by
>arresting and imprisoning one of the Jewish oligarchs Mikhail Khodorkovsky
>who owned Yukos. George Bush likes to compare himself with Churchill but in
>many respects he's quite similar to Boris Yeltsin. Both were elected
>president with the help of their country's Jewish neocons, part of a global
>Jewish network of neocons throughout the world. Both were imbecilic
>frontmen
>for Jewish interests - the only difference being that Bush seems to have
>managed to overcome his addiction to alcohol during his presidency.
>
>Putin has not had it all his own way as far as the construction of
>pipelines
>go. "In this context, the oil czars in the Kremlin may not particularly
>welcome the newly operational Kazakh-China oil pipeline with its
>200,000-barrels-per-day capacity. After all, this pipeline competes with
>the
>long-talked-about but never built oil pipeline from Russia's Siberia to
>China's northeast. For Beijing, this Boris Yeltsin-initiated, Putin-stalled
>and Japanese-frustrated eastern pipeline project may eventually be built."
>(Yu Bin 'The 'not an anti-American' bloc'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HL08Ad01.html  Dec 8, 2006); "China
>plans
>to build more pipelines (from Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and
>Turkmenistan) and the proposed one to Turkmenistan almost reaches up to the
>northern borders of Iran. China has just entered a cooperation agreement
>with Iran in the Caspian region and has a massive multibillion-dollar
>energy
>deal with Tehran." (M K Bhadrakumar 'China plays its own energy game'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HL19Ad06.html  December 19, 2006).
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref7> [7]
>A
>number of non-dollar oil exchanges have already been set up. "The new
>Shanghai Petroleum Exchange settles transactions in the Chinese currency,
>the Yuan. Qatar's new Energy City concept with its integrated IMEX
>(International Mercantile Exchange), which India has recently joined with
>the planned creation of a satellite Energy City/IMEX complex in Mumbai,
>will
>apparently settle transactions initially in the US dollar, with the
>capability to switch to other currencies. The IMEX is a fully autonomous
>system predominantly designed and intended to capture the rising energy
>markets in the East. Prudently, Arab oil and gas exporters are leveraging
>IMEX to work to achieve full autonomy as respects market and exchange
>operations and product pricing and delivery, foreseeing the day when having
>their operations constrained almost completely under the aegis of the
>Anglo-US market arrangement and the US dollar no longer serves their
>strategic interests." (W Joseph Stroupe 'The New World Oil Order. Part 2:
>Russia tips the balance'
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK23Ag01.html  November 23,
>2006).
>
>
>
>  <http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm#_ednref8> [8]
>It has been noted above that Chinese leaders fear that America could choke
>off oil supplies to China during a political confrontation. There are two
>places where America could enforce such an embargo: the straits of Hormuz
>and in Indonesian waters. At present, Indonesia allows the American navy
>access to its coastal waters because of its dependence on American fossil
>fuel companies but there is no reason to believe this will not change if
>Russian energy companies replace American companies. Russia could then
>decide to help its Chinese ally by demanding that Indonesia ban the
>American
>navy from its coast.
>
>ban the American navy from its coast.
>
>
>
>[9] See also, "Nor was American triumphalism a fleeting reaction to 1991. A
>decade later, the tragedy of September 11 gave Washington a second chance
>for a real partnership with Russia. At a meeting on June 16, 2001,
>President
>Bush sensed in Putin's «soul» a partner for America. And so it seemed after
>September 11, when Putin's Kremlin did more than any NATO government to
>assist the US war effort in Afghanistan, giving it valuable intelligence, a
>Moscow-trained Afghan combat force and easy access to crucial air bases in
>former Soviet Central Asia. The Kremlin understandably believed that in
>return Washington would give it an equitable relationship. Instead, it got
>US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, Washington's claim to permanent bases in
>Central Asia (as well as Georgia) and independent access to Caspian oil and
>gas, a second round of NATO expansion taking in several former Soviet
>republics and bloc members, and a still-growing indictment of its domestic
>and foreign conduct. Astonishingly, not even September 11 was enough to end
>Washington's winner-take-all principles." (Stephen F. Cohen 'The New
>American Cold War' http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen  July 10,
>2006); "On November 14, 2001, merely a month after the terrorist attacks,
>Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement in which
>they declared that the US and Russia «have overcome the legacy of the Cold
>War», adding that «neither country regards the other as an enemy or
>threat».
>The two presidents of the world's two major nuclear powers cited their
>joint
>responsibility to contribute to international security, and went on to say
>that the US and Russia «are determined to work together, and with other
>nations and international organizations, including the United Nations, to
>promote security, economic well-being, and a peaceful, prosperous, free
>world». Although the word «terrorism» was not mentioned, the intention was
>clear that anti-terrorism, though the official definition of which was not
>congruent in the mind of each leader, was the motivating factor behind the
>new spirit of co-existence. Yet on December 13, 2001, another month later,
>Bush announced that the US would withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
>Missile (ABM) Treaty, pursuant to its provisions that permit withdrawal
>after six months' notice. This was a complete reversal of
>nuclear-deterrence
>scholastics that had evolved in the Cold War that successfully prevented a
>nuclear holocaust though five decades of superpower hostility. The idea
>that
>both superpowers agreed not to undertake defensive measures to neutralize
>any advantage of a first strike by exposing themselves to certain
>vulnerability to a counterstrike was a key factor in stabilizing nuclear
>escalation. With US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the deterrence doctrine
>based on mutual assured destruction (MAD) became history, and the notion of
>a winnable nuclear war became US policy." (Henry C K Liu 'The lame duck and
>the greenhorn'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HF23Ad02.html"
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes
>
>/China/HF23Ad02.html  June 23, 2006).
>
>
>
>[10] The list of Russian «preemptive measures» against the geopolitical
>harm
>that the US is doing to Russia already runs long: the strengthening of
>Russia's «strategic partnership» with China; the highly nuanced Russian
>position on the Iran nuclear issue; the independent course being charted
>toward the Muslim world; the stationing of surface-to-air missiles back in
>Belarus; charging Ukraine and Georgia with market prices for energy
>supplies; hardening of its position over Transdniester (region of Moldova,
>which broke away from that country in the dying days of the Soviet Union
>but
>remains unrecognized internationally); and the «frozen conflicts» in
>Transcaucasus (the southern Caucasus); the strengthening of the Shanghai
>Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization;
>and incipient trends toward forming a «gas alliance» with Iran and the
>Central Asian countries." (M K Bhadrakumar 'The G8 summit: A chronicle of
>wasted time'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html"
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_
>
>Economy/HG06Dj01.html  July 6, 2006).
>
>
>
>[11]  There is another reason why Putin is refusing to do business with
>American companies. "Washington imposed sanctions on two of Russia's
>leading
>arms firms over their links with Iran on Friday, a step Moscow said was a
>«clearly illegitimate» attempt to impose U.S. laws on foreigners. Russia's
>Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the State Department had slapped
>sanctions on state export agency Rosoboronexport and state-owned warplane
>maker Sukhoi, meaning they could no longer work with U.S. firms. The
>statement said the sanctions would stop U.S. companies from working with
>the
>two Russian firms, a potential blow to the Russian Regional Jet civil
>aviation project, which Sukhoi is working on with aerospace giant Boeing."
>(Oliver Bullough and Tom Miles 'Russia says US bans its arms firms over
>Iran
>Sales'  HYPERLINK
>"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060804/ts_nm/russia_usa_sanctions_dc"
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060804/ts_nm/russi
>
>a_usa_sanctions_dc  August 04, 2006).
>
>
>
>[12]  See also, "Russia has moved to get a strategic foothold for Gazprom
>in
>the Sakhalin-2 project, which is now 55% controlled by Royal Dutch Shell
>Plc, and is estimated to have total reserves of about a billion barrels of
>oil and 500 billion cubic meters of gas, which, once operable, would make
>it
>one of the world's largest combined oil and gas projects." (Bill Guerin
>'Indonesia-Russia: Arms, atoms and oil'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL12Ae02.html"
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_As
>
>ia/HL12Ae02.html  December 12, 2006).
>
>
>
>[13] Some commentators have suggested that Russia may not be such a
>dominant
>fossil fuel superpower. "For all its bombast, Russia's strength rests on
>sand. Its demographics are disastrous: in the minute you may have taken to
>read to this point, five Russians died, and only three were born. Its roads
>and railways are still rickety, its pipelines and power stations
>clapped-out. The much touted gas weapon may not be loaded: decades of
>neglect and under-investment may mean that Russia is an energy beggar, not
>an energy bully." (Edward Lucas 'The one way to fight Putin's menace'
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2470215,00.html  November 25,
>2006). Economically Russia has done better, but its foreign investments
>overseas still put it on a par with Malaysia. As an energy provider, Russia
>supplies Europe with about a quarter of its natural gas, but this is
>two-thirds of Russia's gas exports, so that actually Russia is far more
>dependent on its European consumers than they are on it." (Nicolai N Petro
>'Sticking it up Vladimir the Impaler'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ31Ag01.html"
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_A
>
>sia/HJ31Ag01.html  October 31, 2006).
>
>
>
>[14] President Bush supports the 'war against drugs'. "In 2002, President
>Bush announced, «We must reduce drug use for one great moral reason. When
>we
>fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans.»" (Ann
>Jones 'Drug war, Taliban, poppies are all in full flower. Opium, thugs
>bloom
>under U.S. policies in Afghanistan war'
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/17
>/ING08MTPMB1.DTL  December 17, 2006). However, one commentator has
>suggested
>that the heroin problem in America is not as bad as in other countries and
>that the Bush regime has taken little action to deal with the problems that
>do exist. "Almost all the heroin goes to Europe, although significant
>amounts are siphoned off (with less profit but equal social devastation) in
>Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian Republics en route. These countries
>now have monster drug problems where none existed before. But only a tiny
>amount of Afghan heroin finds its way to the US. Which is probably why
>Washington has little interest in forging consensus about how to deal with
>the disaster, or in committing US troops and (most importantly) aid effort
>to eradicate production." (Brian Cloughley 'Afghanistan's Drug Catastrophe'
>http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley12212006.html  December 21, 2006). It
>is true that the Taliban nearly succeeded in wiping out poppy cultivation
>and that the American invasion of Afghanistan triggered the explosion in
>heroin production. "When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in
>October 2001, poppies were grown on only 7,600 hectares. Under the American
>occupation that followed the defeat of the Taliban, poppy cultivation
>spread
>to every province, and overall production has increased exponentially ever
>since - this year by 60 percent. So far, the poppy-eradication program,
>largely funded by the United States, hasn't made a dent. Last year, it
>claimed to have destroyed 38,000 acres of poppies, up from 12,000 the year
>before; but during the same period overall poppy cultivation soared from
>104,000 hectares to 165,000 hectares (or 408,000 acres)." (Ann Jones 'Drug
>war, Taliban, poppies are all in full flower. Opium, thugs bloom under U.S.
>policies in Afghanistan war'
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/17
>/ING08MTPMB1.DTL  December 17, 2006). The Nato alliance in Afghanistan is
>pursuing a two pronged objective - destroying the Taliban and wiping out
>heroin production. These objectives are mutually self defeating. Destroying
>poppy cultivation pushes Afghans into support for the Taliban. Attacking
>the
>Taliban boosts the power of the drugs' warlords in Kabul's parliament. "The
>trade penetrates even the elected Parliament, which is full of the usual
>suspects. Among the 249 members of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house) are at
>least 17 known drug traffickers, in addition to 40 commanders of armed
>militias, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing serious
>allegations of war crimes and human rights violations, any or all of whom
>may be affiliated with the poppy business." (Ann Jones 'Drug war, Taliban,
>poppies are all in full flower. Opium, thugs bloom under U.S. policies in
>Afghanistan war'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/1
>7/ING08MTPMB1.DTL"
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/1
>7
>
>/ING08MTPMB1.DTL  December 17, 2006).
>
>
>
>[15] Just as China developed a strategic alliance with Pakistan
>
>to counter their mutual rival, India.
>
>
>
>[16] See also, "In the corridors of the conference, most of the oil and gas
>executives and scholars agreed that the way the game is played today in
>Pipelineistan, everything is politicized. «When Bush tells India, 'You
>don't
>need to import gas from Iran,' that's totally illogical,» said a Georgian
>scholar based in Bologna. «The [alleged Iranian] bomb is a pretext,» said
>an
>Iranian oil executive based in London. «The Americans don't want Iran to
>develop, and that's equally true of China and Venezuela. We need to talk
>about security through knowledge.»" (Pepe Escobar 'In the heart of
>Pipelineistan' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak03.html 
>March
>17, 2006); "Last year Condi whizzed down to New Delhi to prevent India from
>finalizing technical and commercial contracts for a $4.5 billion natural
>gas
>pipeline - the so-called «Peace Pipeline» - that would transit Pakistan but
>provide Iranian natural gas mostly to India. Iran proposed making India
>effectively a «partner» in the gas pipeline, oil refining and other energy
>related projects to the tune of $40 billion. Well, an
>Iranian-Pakistani-Indian Islamic law-friendly energy «partnership» would
>never do. So, Condi proposed, as a mutually exclusive alternative, a
>U.S.-Indian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement." (Gordon Prather 'Condi's
>Diplomatic Triumph'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=10210"
>http://www.antiwar.com/prather/
>
>?articleid=10210  December 23, 2006).
>
>
>
>[17]  America's attempt to woo India at Pakistan's expense has forced
>Pakistan into an even closer relationship with China. Pakistan may well
>achieve through China what India is acquiring through Israel and America.
>"Sino-Pakistan cooperation in many fields goes back several decades, and
>both countries are effusive in their description of their friendship. And
>indeed the relationship has been an «all-weather friendship», having
>survived the region's turbulent politics as well as major realignments in
>international politics. A shared antagonism toward India keeps the
>friendship alive. For China, Pakistan is a useful counterweight to India.
>This is behind its efforts at building the country's economic and military
>muscle. Pakistan also provides China with a link to the Muslim world."
>(Sudha Ramachandran 'Good deals, but no nukes for Pakistan'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK28Df01.html"
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asi
>
>a/HK28Df01.html  November 28, 2006).
>
>
>
>[18]  See also, "Abdullah angered many Shiites when he warned two years ago
>of a Shiite "crescent" extending from Iran to Lebanon. Earlier this week,
>he
>said the region soon could face three civil wars - in Iraq, Lebanon and the
>Palestinian territories." (Sally Buzbee 'Maliki's snub reverberates through
>Middle East'  HYPERLINK "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15975499/"
>http://www.msnbc.
>
>msn.com/id/15975499/  Nov. 30, 2006).
>
>
>
>[19] One amusing indication as to just how desperate british politicians
>were to prevent Europe from succumbing to Russian fossil fuel domination
>was
>that even American oriented, anti-euro politicians started insisting that
>Britain must give up on its euroscepticism! "Then the West must stick
>together. Russia expertly plays off one country against another. British
>eurosceptics must drop their defeatist disdain for a common European
>foreign
>policy, especially in the field of energy security. Without it, we risk
>losing half the continent to the Kremlin's new empire, one built on
>pipelines rather than tanks." (Edward Lucas 'The one way to fight Putin's
>menace' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2470215,00.html  November
>25, 2006). Euroscepticism has played straight into Putin's
>
>  strategy for fossil fuel domination.
>
>
>
>[20] Bulls is an accurate description not merely of Bush but of American
>troops in Iraq. Their policy is to shoot first and then ask questions later
>- a stance accepted by the American public as common sense since they do
>not
>want their troops killed in action. But this policy is just a deception
>because us troops don't speak Arabic. "If winning hearts and minds is
>supposed to be part of the plan, then the U.S. troops just don't have the
>means. They don't speak Arabic, they don't understand the culture, they
>don't share the faith, they don't know the history. Van Creveld doesn't
>mince his words: "The American military have proved totally incompetent.""
>(Christopher Dickey 'Closer to the Abyss'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16072946/site/newsweek/"
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16
>
>072946/site/newsweek/  Dec. 6, 2006).
>
>
>
>[21] The military-industrial-zionist complex is unlikely to have profited
>from the wars. "Oil was a terrible reason (for invading Iraq), as events
>have shown. Profiteering was a terrible reason too: real defense companies
>learned long ago that you can make just as much money selling the
>government
>expensive stuff that shuffles off into obsolescence without ever being
>used.
>Much the same goes for other corporations. Halliburton has lost money every
>year of the war. Bechtel, the giant construction firm, has just cut and run
>itself. WMDs, no, not a great reason. Fighting terror, no, not a great
>reason either." (Michael Neumann 'Sooner Rather Than Later. Cut and Run
>from
>Iraq'  HYPERLINK "http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11072006.html"
>http://www.counterpunch.org/neu
>
>mann11072006.html  November 7, 2006).
>
>
>
>[22] The Jewish lobby' was intent on manipulating America into an invasion
>of Iraq. From the start of his presidency, Bush was entirely focused on
>Iraq
>and state terrorism. As a consequence, the Bush regime was blinded against
>the threat posed by Al Qaeda. "This was a drastic policy shift. Time
>magazine reported in June 2002 that Bill Clinton's national security
>adviser
>Sandy Berger and counter-terrorism deputy Richard Clarke, in presenting
>their transition report to Berger's successor Condoleezza Rice and her
>staff
>in the first week of January 2001, had cited al-Qaeda as the greatest
>threat
>facing the US as Clinton left office. Rice thought otherwise and identified
>China as the greatest threat. Bush subsequently referred to China as a
>strategic competitor, rather than a strategic partner as the outgoing
>Clinton administration had done." (Henry C K Liu 'The lame duck and the
>greenhorn' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HF23Ad02.html  June 23,
>2006).
>The irony was that after Al Qaeda's spectacular attack on America, the Bush
>administration used the attack not merely to go after Al Qaeda but as an
>excuse to invade Iraq. The American military made only a half hearted job
>of
>eradicating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because they were too busy making
>preparations for the invasion of Iraq. Once the invasion had taken place
>little further attention was paid to Afghanistan enabling the Taliban, and
>even Al Qaeda, to survive and flourish. So, in effect, the Bush
>administration was so pre-occupied by Iraq it was blinded both to Al
>Qaeda's
>attack and then to the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Remember
>them, the guys who harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists, who gifted us with the
>9/11 attacks five years ago, that President Bush promised to eliminate?
>Well, it turns out that while he was distracted with Iraq, the patrons of
>terrorism were very much in business back where the 9/11 attack was
>hatched,
>turning Afghanistan into a narco-state that provides a lucrative source of
>cash for the "evildoers" Bush forgot about." (Robert Scheer 'Afghanistan:
>High on Opium, Not Democracy'
>http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060905_robert_scheer_afghanistan_opium
>/  Sep 5, 2006); "Rather than take care of business in Afghanistan after
>9/11, Bush and clueless U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed bin
>Laden to slip out of the Tora Bora caves to plan more attacks and the
>Taliban to regroup. Instead, Bush and Co. threw the bulk of our military
>and
>aid resources into a disastrous attempt to remake oil-rich Iraq, which had
>nothing to do with 9/11, into an American puppet state." (Robert Scheer
>'Afghanistan: High on Opium, Not Democracy'
>http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060905_robert_scheer_afghanistan_opium
>/  Sep 5, 2006); "On his last day in office, in the traditional meeting
>between retiring and incoming presidents, Clinton identified Al Qaeda to
>Bush as America's most pressing foreign-policy challenge. Yet later that
>same month, January 2001, Rice themed the first National Security Council
>meeting of the Bush presidency on the topic of «how Iraq is destabilizing
>the [Middle East] region.» (David Olive 'End of the Neo-Cons'  HYPERLINK
>"http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110606J.shtml"
>http://www.truthout.org/docs_20
>
>06/110606J.shtml  November 05 2006).
>
>
>
>[23] Given the Jewish ruling elite's total emasculation of the interests of
>America's gigantic, multi-national, oil corporations, which are currently
>amongst the world's biggest companies, the question that has to be asked is
>why haven't America's energy companies come out with all guns blazing to
>defend their interests before they lose everything? Surely at some point
>they have got to challenge the Jewish lobby before they are locked out of
>other countries besides Russia and Iran. Such must be the power and the
>wealth of America's Jewish ruling elite that not even the country's oil
>giants can stand up to it.
>
>It has been suggested that James Baker's Iraq Study Group represents the
>interests of the country's fossil fuel companies and is making just such a
>come-back - attempting to force Bush to change his fantastical 'victory is
>still possible' policies in Iraq. "Whatever one thinks about James Baker,
>he
>is a seasoned diplomat and a serious man. His record shows that he has
>broad
>support among the leaders in the American oligarchy, so he can't simply be
>ignored. He represents a powerful constituency of corporate chieftains and
>oil magnates who are conspicuously worried about the deteriorating
>situation
>in Iraq and want to see a change of course. Baker's their man. He's the
>logical emissary for the growing number of jittery plutocrats who see that
>the Bush policy-train has jumped the tracks. But if Big Oil wants a change
>of direction then where is Bush getting his support for "staying the
>course"? The only group left touting Bush's failed policy is the "Israel
>first" camp which continues to wave the bloody shirt of incitement from
>their perch at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute.
>These same diehards are leading the charge for a preemptive attack on Iran;
>a criminal act which will have catastrophic effects on America's long-term
>energy needs. So, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side we have
>James Baker and his corporate classmates who want to restore order while
>preserving America's imperial role in the region. And, on the other side,
>we
>have the neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and
>chaotic Middle East where Israel is the dominant power." (Mike Whitney
>'Something's Gotta Give James Baker Versus the Lobby'
>http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney12092006.html  December 9/10, 2006).
>
>See also, "Equally important, Baker has the backing of the major petroleum
>and gas companies of Houston-Dallas, who have been sidelined from Middle
>East policymaking during the Zioncon-militarist ascendancy in the White
>House. They are eager for an "even-handed" Middle East policy to serve
>their
>economic ties with Middle East oil producers and to facilitate commercial
>negotiations with Iran and the Gulf States. Major US investment houses,
>including those whose CEOs are prominent donors to the pro-Israel lobbies,
>are eager for a peace settlement, which includes Iran, in order to move
>into
>the new multi-billion dollar Islamic investments funds, which have emerged
>among the Arab Gulf States." (James Petras 'The US and the Middle East: A
>"Grand Settlement" Versus the Jewish Lobby' December 2006); "Nevertheless,
>there was an element of historical drama in what took place in Washington
>in
>the first week of December 2006. When the grand narrative of the American
>Empire is written decades from now, it will describe the preparation and
>the
>issuance of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, together with the
>replacement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, as
>elements in a powerful political coup staged by the members of the old
>American foreign policy establishment against the neoconservative
>ideologues
>who had taken control of the Bush administration's national security
>apparatus and much of official Washington after 9/11." (Leon Hadar 'The
>Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?'
>http://www.antiwar.com/hadar/?articleid=10153  December 13, 2006);
>"President Bush lacks the knowledge, judgment, and experience to be in the
>Oval Office. He has been deceived and manipulated by neoconservatives who
>live in the fantasy world of their own ideology and who have been aligned
>with Israel's right-wing Likud Party for most of their careers. The
>neoconservatives put Bush and the U.S., along with Iraqis, Afghans, and
>Lebanese, in harm's way. Their fantasy enterprise failed, and now they damn
>Bush for a lost war that they said would be a cakewalk. Neoconservatives
>told Bush that U.S. troops would have flowers thrown at them, not bombs.
>Many neoconservatives have been cleared out of the Bush administration. But
>other neoconservatives still occupy media positions, which they will
>continue to use to lie to the American public. As long as the
>neoconservatives' protector, Vice President Cheney, continues to have
>influence, the Israeli Lobby might again succeed in overthrowing American
>public opinion and win its war against the Iraq Study Group." (Paul Craig
>Roberts 'Is James Baker a Match for AIPAC?'