oil | ukwatch.net

Putin wins (probably)

tim — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:16:59 +0000

It is obvious by now that Georgia is going to suffer a humiliating loss, even with extensive Western backing. Not only is its weary army fighting Russian troops, but they are also being battered by attacks from independence fighters in Abkhazia. The Russian press have openly spoken of annexing Abkhazia. For example, Alexander Bobkov in the Russkii Kurier summarised some of the common Russian press perceptions about the region - dispelling worries that it is a "purely Muslim republic" or that annexing it would stimulate a war with the EU and US, and pointing out the economic benefits of "210 kilometers of sub-tropical Black Sea coastline".

Since the region has already declared itself independent of Georgia, and has suffered international isolation and blockade as a result, it may even welcome integration into Russia so that it is part of a recognised world power with an accessible economy. Russia is already devoting aid to the region in anticipation of future tax receipts. Meanwhile, Putin's forces are systematically taking out economic and military targets in Georgia, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Georgia claims Russia is preparing an invasion - probably an exaggeration, but I wouldn't be surprised to see thousands of Russian troops being stationed around the seceding regions. If the Bush administration did endorse Saakashvili's actions, it blundered horribly, and Russia may well end up with an expanded territory in a geo-economically prized region.

Even if Bush was somehow taken by surprise, which I think is unlikely, there is no doubt that the US government and its supporters are now throwing their weight decisively behind Georgia, and are about to get a bloody nose for their trouble. Russia has sought a peace deal through the UN Security Council, but "council concluded it was at a stalemate after the United States, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides “to renounce the use of force,” council diplomats said." That's fairly clear, isn't it?

Georgia and its backers are being absolutely intransigent, refusing to withdraw Georgian troops from South Ossetia, where - not that you would know it from much of the reporting - they are actually carrying out serious atrocities. So when the Observer and papers like it say the "world pleads for peace", they aren't being strictly up-front with us. Georgia is claiming this morning to have withdrawn all troops from South Ossetia. I doubt that is the case - why reject a bilateral ceasefire at the UN, only to engage in a unilateral one the next day? But to the extent that this reflects Georgia's weakness, it surely augurs their imminent defeat.

You have to wonder how far the US is prepared to take this - they aren't going to commit troops and, no matter how much Saakashvili may wish it, NATO is not going to overstretch itself even further. There are also rumours going around sites like DEBKAFile and other sites that Israeli advisors are assisting the Georgian side of the conflict. Yossi Melman of Ha'aretz has apparently supported this claim. It is no secret that there are Israeli military advisors in Georgia, but Israel has a delicate relationship with Russia that it doesn't want to upset. That is presumably why Israel froze defense sales to Georgia on Tuesday. Israel is clearly far more beholden to the US than to Russia, but I suspect the Bush administration would rather Israel stayed out of any explicit involvement. So, unless I drastically underestimate the Georgian military, I can't see any other outcome than a decisive Russian victory here.

Incidentally, just so that this point isn't lost in the deliberately confusing reportage. Yes, Russian jets are attacking Georgian targets and killing civilians. Yes, the reported civilian casualties "on both sides" is reported to be over 2,000. What is quite often not stated or just gently skated over in the reporting, so laden with images of Georgian dead and wounded, is that the estimate of 2,000 civilian deaths comes from the Russian government and it applies overwhelmingly to the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia on Friday.

In fact, this is the basis for Vladimir Putin's claims of a "genocide" against South Osettians by the Georgians (is he deliberately referencing the ICTY judgment about Srebrenica here?). The Georgian side, by contrast, claims 129 deaths of both soldiers and civilians. So, if Russian figures are good enough to reference, why is the source of the figures and their context obscured? Why is being made to look as if Russian forces are behind most of those alleged deaths? Doesn't this just amount to a whitewash of the actions of the Georgian army in South Ossetia? And why not mention 30,000 refugees too?

War in the Caucasus and The Battle for Oil

tim — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:41:25 +0000

Part 1, August 2008

War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?

During the night of August 7, coinciding with the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, Georgia's president Saakashvili ordered an all-out military attack on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia.

The aerial bombardments and ground attacks were largely directed against civilian targets including residential areas, hospitals and the university. The provincial capital Tskhinvali was destroyed. The attacks resulted in some 1500 civilian deaths, according to both Russian and Western sources. "The air and artillery bombardment left the provincial capital without water, food, electricity and gas. Horrified civilians crawled out of the basements into the streets as fighting eased, looking for supplies." (AP, August 9, 2008). According to reports, some 34,000 people from South Ossetia have fled to Russia. (Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, August 10, 2008)

The importance and timing of this military operation must be carefully analyzed. It has far-reaching implications.

Georgia is an outpost of US and NATO forces, on the immediate border of the Russian Federation and within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater. South Ossetia is also at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.

Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.

Who is behind this military agenda? What interests are being served? What is the purpose of the military operation.

There is evidence that the attacks were carefully coordinated by the US military and NATO.

Moscow has accused NATO of "encouraging Georgia". Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underscored the destabilizing impacts of "foreign" military aid to Georgia: .

“It all confirms our numerous warnings addressed to the international community that it is necessary to pay attention to massive arms purchasing by Georgia during several years. Now we see how these arms and Georgian special troops who had been trained by foreign specialists are used,” he said.(Moscow accuses NATO of having "encouraged Georgia" to attack South Ossetia, Russia Today, August 9, 2008)

Moscow's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, sent an official note to the representatives of all NATO member countries:

“Russia has already begun consultations with the ambassadors of the NATO countries and consultations with NATO military representatives will be held tomorrow," Rogozin said. "We will caution them against continuing to further support of Saakashvili."

“It is an undisguised aggression accompanied by a mass propaganda war,” he said.

(See Moscow accuses NATO of having "encouraged Georgia" to attack South Ossetia, Russia Today, August 9, 2008)

According to Rogozin, Georgia had initially planned to:

"start military action against Abkhazia, however, 'the Abkhaz fortified region turned out to be unassailable for Georgian armed formations, therefore a different tactic was chosen aimed against South Ossetia', which is more accessible territorially. The envoy has no doubts that Mikheil Saakashvili had agreed his actions with "sponsors", "those with whom he is negotiating Georgia's accession to NATO ". (RIA Novosti, August 8, 2008)

Contrary to what was conveyed by Western media reports, the attacks were anticipated by Moscow. The attacks were timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics, largely with a view to avoiding frontpage media coverage of the Georgian military operation.

On August 7, Russian forces were in an advanced state readiness. The counterattack was swiftly carried out.

Russian paratroopers were sent in from Russia's Ivanovo, Moscow and Pskov airborne divisions. Tanks, armored vehicles and several thousand ground troops have been deployed. Russian air strikes have largely targeted military facilities inside Georgia including the Gori military base.

The Georgian military attack was repelled with a massive show of strength on the part of the Russian military.

Act of Provocation?

US-NATO military and intelligence planners invariably examine various "scenarios" of a proposed military operation-- i.e. in this case, a limited Georgian attack largely directed against civilian targets, with a view to inflicting civilian casualties.

The examination of scenarios is a routine practice. With limited military capabilities, a Georgian victory and occupation of Tskhinvali, was an impossibility from the outset. And this was known and understood to US-NATO military planners.

A humanitarian disaster rather than a military victory was an integral part of the scenario. The objective was to destroy the provincial capital, while also inflicting a significant loss of human life.

If the objective were to restore Georgian political control over the provincial government, the operation would have been undertaken in a very different fashion, with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions, rather than waging an all out bombing raid on residential areas, hospitals, not to mention Tskhinvali's University.

The Russian response was entirely predictable.

Georgia was "encouraged" by NATO and the US. Both Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels were acutely aware of what would happen in the case of a Russian counterattack.

The question is: was this a deliberate provocation intended to trigger a Russian military response and suck the Russians into a broader military confrontation with Georgia (and allied forces) which could potentially escalate into an all out war?

Georgia has the third largest contingent of coalition forces in Iraq after the US and the UK, with some 2000 troops. According to reports, Georgian troops in Iraq are now being repatriated in US military planes, to fight Russian forces. (See Debka.com, August 10, 2008)

This US decision to repatriate Georgian servicemen suggests that Washington is intent upon an escalation of the conflict, where Georgian troops are to be used as cannon fodder against a massive deployment of Russian forces.

US-NATO and Israel Involved in the Planning of the Attacks

In mid-July, Georgian and U.S. troops held a joint military exercise entitled "Immediate Response" involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.

The announcement by the Georgian Ministry of Defense on July 12 stated that they US and Georgian troops were to "train for three weeks at the Vaziani military base" near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. (AP, July 15, 2008). These exercises, which were completed barely a week before the August 7 attacks, were an obvious dress rehearsal of a military operation, which, in all likelihood, had been planned in close cooperation with the Pentagon.

The war on Southern Ossetia was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia. It was intended to destabilize the region while also triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia.

On July 12, coinciding with the outset of the Georgia-US war games, the Russian Defense Ministry started its own military maneuvers in the North Caucasus region. The usual disclaimer by both Tblisi and Moscow: the military exercises have “nothing to do” with the situation in South Ossetia. (Ibid)

Let us be under no illusions. This is not a civil war. The attacks are an integral part of the broader Middle East Central Asian war, including US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to Iran.

The Role of Israeli Military Advisers

While NATO and US military advisers did not partake in the military operation per se, they were actively involved in the planning and logistics of the attacks. According to Israeli sources (Debka.com, August 8, 2008), the ground assault on August 7-8, using tanks and artillery was "aided by Israeli military advisers". Israel also supplied Georgia with Hermes-450 and Skylark unmanned aerial vehicles, which were used in the weeks leading up to the August 7 attacks.

Georgia has also acquired, according to a report in Rezonansi (August 6, in Georgian, BBC translation) "some powerful weapons through the upgrade of Su-25 planes and artillery systems in Israel". According to Haaretz (August 10, 2008), Israelis are active in military manufacturing and security consulting in Georgia.

Russian forces are now directly fighting a NATO-US trained Georgian army integrated by US and Israeli advisers. And Russian warplanes have attacked the military jet factory on the outskirts of Tbilisi, which produces the upgraded Su-25 fighter jet, with technical support from Israel. (CTV.ca, August 10, 2008)

When viewed in the broader context of the Middle East war, the crisis in Southern Ossetia could lead to escalation, including a direct confrontation between Russian and NATO forces. If this were to occur, we would be facing the most serious crisis in US-Russian relations since the Cuban Missile crisis in October 1962.

Georgia: NATO-US Outpost

Georgia is part of a NATO military alliance (GUAM) signed in April 1999 at the very outset of the war on Yugoslavia. It also has a bilateral military cooperation agreement with the US. These underlying military agreements have served to protect Anglo-American oil interests in the Caspian sea basin as well as pipeline routes.

Both the US and NATO have a military presence in Georgia and are working closely with the Georgian Armed Forces. Since the signing of the 1999 GUAM agreement, Georgia has been the recipient of extensive US military aid.

Barely a few months ago, in early May, the Russian Ministry of Defense accused Washington, "claiming that [US as well as NATO and Israeli] military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region." (Russia Claims Georgia in Arms Buildup, Wired News, May 19, 2008). According to the Russian Defense Ministry

"Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles (126 - from NATO) , 79 guns (67 - from NATO) , 25 helicopters (12 - from NATO) , 70 mortars, ten surface-to-air missile systems, eight Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, and other weapons. In addition, NATO countries have supplied four combat aircraft to Georgia. The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms." (Interfax News Agency, Moscow, in Russian, Aug 7, 2008)

NATO-US-Israeli assistance under formal military cooperation agreements involves a steady flow of advanced military equipment as well as training and consulting services.

According to US military sources (spokesman for US European Command), the US has more than 100 "military trainers" in Georgia. A Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman "said there were no plans to redeploy the estimated 130 US troops and civilian contractors, who he said were stationed in the area around Tblisi" (AFP, 9 August 2008). In fact, US-NATO military presence in Georgia is on a larger scale to that acknowledged in official statements. The number of NATO personnel in Georgia acting as trainers and military advisers has not been confirmed.

Although not officially a member of NATO, Georgia's military is full integrated into NATO procedures. In 2005, Georgian president proudly announced the inauguration of the first military base, which "fully meets NATO standards". Immediately following the inauguration of the Senakskaya base in west Georgia, Tblisi announced the opening of a second military base at Gori which would also "comply with NATO regulations in terms of military requirements as well as social conditions." (Ria Novosti, 26 May 2006).

The Gori base has been used to train Georgian troops dispatched to fight under US command in the Iraq war theater.

It is worth noting that under a March 31, 2006, agreement between Tblisi and Moscow, Russia's two Soviet-era military bases in Georgia - Akhalkalaki and Batumi have been closed down. (Ibid) The pullout at Batumi commenced in May of last year, 2007. The last remaining Russian troops left the Batumi military facility in early July 2008, barely a week before the commencement of the US-Georgia war games and barely a month prior to the attacks on South Ossetia.

The Israel Connection

Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel is a partner in the Baku-Tblisi- Ceyhan pipeline which brings oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean. More than 20 percent of Israeli oil is imported from Azerbaijan, of which a large share transits through the BTC pipeline. Controlled by British Petroleum, the BTC pipeline has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucusus:

"[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel, via Georgia. In this regard, a Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has also been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are far-reaching. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 2006)

What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon.

"Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East,

The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%...

“Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]"

"Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to the city in tankers or via specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea; and from there it can be transported to India and other Asian countries in tankers. (REGNUM)

In this regard, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan. Concurrently, it also involved in channeling military aid and training to both Georgia and Azerbaijan.

A far-reaching 1999 bilateral military cooperation agreement between Tblisi and Tel Aviv was reached barely a month before the NATO sponsored GUUAM agreement. It was signed in Tbilisi by President Shevardnadze and Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyu. These various military cooperation arrangements are ultimately intended to undermine Russia's presence and influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In a pro forma declaration, Tel Aviv committed itself, following bilateral discussions with Moscow, on August 5, 2008, to cut back military assistance to Georgia.

Russia's Response

In response to the attacks, Russian forces intervened with conventional ground troops. Tanks and armored vehicles were sent in. The Russian air force was also involved in aerial counter-attacks on Georgian military positions including the military base of Gori.

The Western media has portrayed the Russian as solely responsible for the deaths of civilians, yet at the same time the Western media has acknowledged (confirmed by the BBC) that most of the civilian casualties at the outset were the result of the Georgian ground and air attacks.

Based on Russian and Western sources, the initial death toll in South Ossetia was at least 1,400 (BBC) mostly civilians. "Georgian casualty figures ranged from 82 dead, including 37 civilians, to a figure of around 130 dead.... A Russian air strike on Gori, a Georgian town near South Ossetia, left 60 people dead, many of them civilians, Georgia says." (BBC, August 9, 2008). Russian sources place the number of civilian deaths on South Ossetia at 2000.

A process of escalation and confrontation between Russia and America is unfolding, reminiscent of the Cold War era.

Are we dealing with an act of provocation, with a view to triggering a broader conflict? Supported by media propaganda, the Western military alliance is intent on using this incident to confront Russia, as evidenced by recent NATO statements.

Part 2, July 2006

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil

Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the World's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?

Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.

One day before the Israeli air strikes, the main partners and shareholders of the BTC pipeline project, including several heads of State and oil company executives were in attendance at the port of Ceyhan. They were then rushed off for an inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the plush surroundings of the Çýraðan Palace.

Also in attendance was British Petroleum's (BP) CEO, Lord Browne together with senior government officials from Britain, the US and Israel. BP leads the BTC pipeline consortium. Other major Western shareholders include Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, France's Total and Italy's ENI. (see Annex)

Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.

The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel.

srael has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some twenty percent of its oil. The opening of the pipeline will substantially enhance Israeli oil imports from the Caspian sea basin.

But there is another dimension which directly relates to the war on Lebanon. Whereas Russia has been weakened, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan.

Militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean

The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.

In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked, through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin:

Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel. In this regard, an underwater Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.

The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%...

“Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]"

Water for Israel

Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

The Strategic Re-routing of Central Asian Oil

Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re-export back to Asia, serves to undermine the inter-Asian energy market, which is based on the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.

Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.

Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market.

Russia's Military Presence in the Middle East

Meanwhile, Moscow has responded to the US-Israeli-Turkish design to militarize the East Mediterranean coastline with plans to establish a Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus:

"Defense Ministry sources point out that a naval base in Tartus will enable Russia to solidify its positions in the Middle East and ensure security of Syria. Moscow intends to deploy an air defense system around the base - to provide air cover for the base itself and a substantial part of Syrian territory. (S-300PMU-2 Favorit systems will not be turned over to the Syrians. They will be manned and serviced by Russian personnel.)

(Kommerzant, 2 June 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20060...

Tartus is strategically located within 30 km. of the Lebanese border.

Moreover, Moscow and Damascus have reached an agreement on the modernization of Syria's air defenses as well as a program in support to its ground forces, the modernization of its MIG-29 fighters as well as its submarines. (Kommerzant, 2 June 2006). In the context of an escalating conflict, these developments have farreaching implications.

War and Oil Pipelines

Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes do not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.

On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.

The implementation of a land-based corridor, as opposed to the underwater pipeline project, would require the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.

It is worth noting that the US War Academy had already contemplated the formation of a "Greater Lebanon" which would extend along the coastline from Israel to Turkey. In this scenario, the entire Syrian coastline would be annexed to an Anglo-American Israeli protectorate.(See Map of The New Middle East below).

Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel.

There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines.

The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. (Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2006)

At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.

The end of the world as we know it

JamieSW — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:36:16 +0000

As fuel prices rocket, a new world energy order is emerging. It will bring with it a fierce international competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal and uranium, and also an epochal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states such as the US, Japan and the newly-industrialising China to energy-surplus states such as Russia, Venezuela and the oil producers of the Middle East. Michael Klare examines the likely consequences of the growing competition for the soon-to-be diminishing supply of energy

Oil at $150 a barrel, up sevenfold in six years. Unleaded touching £1.20 per gallon, diesel at more than £1.30 at even the cheapest UK pumps. Gasoline at $4.50-plus – an undreamt-of height – in the US, with diesel topping $5, forcing many truckers off the road. Home heating oil at prices that many cannot afford. Jet fuel so expensive that the major carriers have cut back on routes and some low-cost airlines have ceased flying altogether.

This is just a taste of the latest energy-related news, signalling a profound change in how all of us, in the United Kingdom, the United States and around the world, are going to live – trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the struggle over their allocation intensifies.

Energy of all sorts was once abundant, making possible the worldwide economic expansion of the past six decades. This expansion benefited the US most of all, along with its ‘first world’ allies in Europe and the Pacific. Recently, however, a select group of former ‘third world’ countries – China and India in particular – have sought to participate in this energy bonanza by industrialising their economies and selling a wide range of goods to international markets. This, in turn, has created an unprecedented spurt in global energy consumption – an increase of 47 per cent in the past 20 years alone, according to the US Department of Energy.

A new world energy order

An increase this huge would not be a matter of deep anxiety if the world’s energy suppliers were capable of producing all the additional fuels needed. Instead, we face the frightening reality of a marked slowdown in the development of global energy supplies just as demand is rising precipitously. These supplies are not actually running out – although that will occur sooner or later – but they are not growing fast enough to satisfy soaring demand. The combination of rising demand, powerful new consumers and the contraction of supply is demolishing the energy-abundant world most of us are familiar with and in its place creating a new world energy order.

This new order will be characterised not only by fierce competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal and uranium, but also by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states such as China, Japan, and the United States to energy-surplus states such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In the process, the lives of everyone on the planet will be affected in one way or another – with poor and middle-class consumers in the energy-deficit states experiencing the harshest effects.

There are five key trends in this new world order that will alter life on this planet.

1. Intense competition between older and newer economic powers for the available supplies of energy

Until very recently, the mature industrial powers of Europe, Asia and North America consumed the lion’s share of world energy supply, leaving the dregs for the developing world. As recently as 1990, the members of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of the world’s richest nations, consumed approximately 57 per cent of world energy, and the Soviet bloc 14 per cent. Only 29 per cent was left for the entire developing world, which has about three-quarters of the world’s population.

But that ratio is now changing. With strong economic growth in the developing countries, they are consuming a greater proportion of the world’s energy output. By 2010, the developing nations’ share of global energy use is expected to reach 40 per cent; and if current trends persist their share will reach 47 per cent by 2030.

China, where a quarter of the world’s population lives, plays a critical role in all this. Although China accounted for only 8 per cent of world energy consumption in 1990, its rate of demand is rising so rapidly that it is expected to consume 17 per cent of world energy by 2015 and 20 per cent by 2025 – by which time, if current trends continue, it will have overtaken the US as the world’s leading consumer. India, which in 2004 accounted for 3.4 per cent of world energy use, is projected to reach 4.4 per cent by 2025. Consumption in other rapidly industrialising nations, such as Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Turkey, is expected to climb as well.

To satisfy their growing requirements, these rising economic dynamos will have to compete with the mature powers for access to the world’s remaining untapped reserves of exportable energy. In many cases, these were acquired long ago by the private energy firms of the mature powers – companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Total and Royal Dutch Shell – and are now controlled by the national oil companies (NOCs) of the major supplying nations. Of necessity, the new contenders for energy have developed a potent strategy for competing with the western ‘majors’: they have created state-owned companies of their own and made strategic alliances with the NOCs that now control vast oil and gas reserves in key producing nations.

China’s Sinopec, for example, has established a strategic alliance with Saudi Aramco, the nationalised giant that was once owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, to explore for natural gas in eastern Saudi Arabia and market Saudi crude oil in China. Likewise, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will collaborate with Gazprom, the mammoth Russian state-controlled natural gas behemoth, to build pipelines and deliver Russian gas to China. Several of these state-owned firms, including CNPC and India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, will collaborate with Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA) to develop the extra-heavy crude of the Orinoco belt that was once produced by Chevron. Many other such alliances have been formed or are under discussion, suggesting a new stage of energy competition in which the advantage long enjoyed by the western majors has been eroded by vigorous, state-backed upstarts from the developing world.

2. The insufficiency of primary energy supplies

The capacity of the global energy industry to satisfy demand is shrinking. By all accounts, the global supply of oil will expand for another half-decade before reaching a peak level of output and beginning to decline, while supplies of natural gas, coal and uranium will probably continue to grow for another decade or two before reaching their peak and commencing their own inevitable declines. In the meantime, global supplies will prove incapable of reaching the levels needed to meet demand.

Take oil. The US Department of Energy claims that world oil demand, expected to reach 117.6 million barrels per day in 2030, will be matched by a global supply that – miracle of miracles – will hit exactly 117.7 million barrels (including liquids derived from allied substances such as natural gas and Canadian tar sands) at the same time. Most energy professionals, however, consider this supply estimate highly unrealistic.

‘One hundred million barrels [per day] is now in my view an optimistic case,’ the CEO of Total, Christophe de Margerie, told a London oil conference in October 2007. ‘It is not my view; it is the industry view, or the view of those who like to speak clearly, honestly, and [are] not just trying to please people.’

Similarly, the authors of the Medium-Term Oil Market Report for 2008-2012, published in July 2007 by the International Energy Agency, an affiliate of the OECD, concluded that world oil output might rise as high as 96 million barrels per day by 2012, but was unlikely to go much beyond that level as older fields went into decline and a dearth of new discoveries made future growth impossible.

Daily business-page headlines point to a matrix of clashing trends: demand will continue to grow as hundred of millions of newly-affluent Chinese and Indian consumers line up to purchase their first automobiles; key older fields such as Ghawar in Saudi Arabia and Canterell in Mexico are in decline or expected to be so soon; the rate of new oilfield discoveries proves disappointing year after year. We can expect that oil shortages and high prices will prove a constant source of economic hardship.

The picture for other fuels is slightly better – but only just. Even if global output of natural gas, coal and uranium will continue to grow after the peaking of oil, the inevitable contraction of petroleum supplies will produce a corresponding increase in demand for these fuels, and so they will be depleted at an ever-increasing rate – moving their own peak closer and increasing their cost.

3. The painfully slow development of alternatives

It has long been evident that new sources of energy are needed to compensate for the disappearance of existing fuels, and to slow the buildup of climate-changing ‘greenhouse gases’. Wind and solar power have gained a foothold in some areas and ethanol provides a small but growing percentage of the world’s transportation fuel. Moreover, a number of other innovative energy solutions have been developed and tested in university and corporate laboratories. But these alternatives, which contribute only a tiny proportion of the world’s fuel supply, are simply not being developed fast enough to avert the multifaceted global energy catastrophe that lies ahead.

According to the US Department of Energy, renewable fuels, including wind, solar, biofuels, and hydropower, along with ‘traditional’ fuels such as firewood and animal dung, accounted for just 7.4 per cent of world energy use in 2004; biofuels added another 0.3 per cent. Meanwhile, fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas – supplied 86 per cent of world energy, nuclear power another 6 per cent. Based on current rates of development and investment, the department offers the dismal projection that fossil fuels will still account for exactly the same share of world energy in 2030 as in 2004: 86 per cent. The expected increase in the share claimed by renewables and biofuels is so tiny as to be meaningless.

For global warming, the implications are nothing short of catastrophic. Increasing reliance on coal (especially in China, India and the US) means that global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to rise by 59 per cent over the next quarter-century, from 26.9 billion metric tons in 2004 to 42.9 billion in 2030. The meaning of this is simple: if these figures hold, there is no hope of averting the worst effects of climate change.

When it comes to global energy supplies, the implications are nearly as dire. To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which in turn would require investment in the trillions of dollars to ensure that the most promising options move from the laboratory to full-scale commercial production. But that is not on the cards. Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish US government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting most of their profits from rising energy prices into share buy-back schemes and vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes to drill for oil and gas in Alaska and the deep, dangerous waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic and the Atlantic. The result? A little more oil and gas at exorbitant prices – with accompanying ecological damage – while non-petroleum alternatives limp along at a snail’s pace.

4. A steady migration of power and wealth from the energy-deficit to the energy-surplus nations

There are a few countries – perhaps a dozen altogether – that possess enough oil, gas, coal and uranium (or some combination thereof) to meet their own energy needs and provide a significant surplus for export. These few privileged states will be able to extract increasingly beneficial terms from the much wider pool of energy-deficit nations dependent on them for vital supplies of energy. This will result in growing mountains of petrodollars being accumulated by the leading oil producers, and increasingly it will mean political and military concessions.

In the case of oil and natural gas, the number of major energy-surplus states can be counted on two hands. Ten states possess 82.2 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves. In order of importance, they are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. The possession of natural gas is even more concentrated. Three countries – Russia, Iran, and Qatar – harbour an astonishing 55.8 per cent of the world supply. All of these countries export more oil and gas than they consume, and so are in the enviable position of being able to cash in on the dramatic rise in energy prices and extract from potential customers whatever political concessions they deem essential.

The transfer of wealth is already mind-boggling. The oil-exporting countries collected an estimated $970 billion from the importing countries in 2006; the take for 2007, when finally calculated, is expected to be far greater. A substantial fraction of these dollars, yen and euros have been deposited in sovereign-wealth funds (SWFs), the giant investment accounts established by the oil states and deployed for the acquisition of valuable assets around the world. In recent months, the Persian Gulf SWFs have been taking advantage of the financial crisis in the US to purchase large stakes in strategic sectors of its economy.

In November 2007, for example, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) acquired a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup, America’s largest bank holding company. In January 2008, Citigroup sold an even larger share, worth $12.5 billion, to the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) and several other Middle Eastern investors, including Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. The managers of ADIA and KIA insist that they do not intend to use their newly-acquired stakes in Citigroup and other US banks and corporations to influence US economic or foreign policy, but it is hard to imagine that a shift of this magnitude – which can only gain momentum in the years ahead – will not translate into political leverage.

In the case of Russia – which has risen from the ashes of the former Soviet Union as the world’s first energy superpower – it already has. Russia is now the world’s leading supplier of natural gas, its second largest supplier of oil and is a major producer of coal and uranium. Though many of these assets were briefly privatised during the reign of Boris Yeltsin, most were brought back under state control during the presidency of Vladimir Putin (in some cases, by questionable legal means). Putin then used these assets in efforts to extract political and economic concessions from former Soviet republics that were reliant on Russia for the bulk of their oil and gas supplies. The EU countries sometimes expressed dismay at these tactics – but they, too, are significantly dependent on Russian oil and gas, and so have learned to mute their protests and otherwise accommodate to growing Russian control over Eurasian energy flows.

In extending Russia’s energy power throughout Eurasia, Putin usually relied on Gazprom, the state-controlled natural gas behemoth that provides about a quarter of OECD Europe’s gas supply. Gazprom is also Russia’s leading source of foreign earnings and its top source of government income. For years, the chairman of Gazprom was a close political ally of Putin’s from St Petersburg, Dmitri Medvedev. When obliged to step down as president under a constitutional ban on serving more than two consecutive terms, Putin picked Medvedev to succeed him. In a sense, Gazprom and the Russian state have become one and the same, and Russia itself has emerged as a model for the new energy world order.

5. A growing risk of conflict

Throughout human history, major shifts in economic and political power on this scale have normally been accompanied by violence – in some cases, protracted violent upheavals. Either the states at the pinnacle of power have fought to prevent the loss of their privileged status to others, or challengers have fought to topple those at the top of the heap.

Will this happen now? Will energy-deficit nations launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of the surplus states from their control – the Bush administration’s war in Iraq might already be thought of one such attempt – or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals?

Certainly there are many reasons to argue against such scenarios. The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known, and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle over energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject. These endeavours could easily lead to unintended escalation and conflict.

One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is the regular transfer of arms and military support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the US and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states such as Angola, Nigeria and Sudan, and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The US has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country’s onshore oil is produced. Beijing has emphasised arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the south and Darfur.

Russia is also using arms transfers as a instrument in its efforts to gain influence in the major oil and gas producing regions, especially the Caspian Sea basin and the Persian Gulf. Its urge is not is not to procure energy for its own domestic use, but rather to dominate the flow of energy to others. In particular, Moscow seeks a monopoly on the transportation of central Asian gas to Europe via Gazprom’s vast pipeline network; it also wants to tap into Iran’s mammoth gas fields, further cementing Russia’s control over the trade in natural gas.

The danger, of course, is that such endeavours, multiplied over time, will provoke local arms races in these areas, exacerbate regional tensions, and increase the danger of great-power involvement in any local conflicts that do erupt. History has all too many examples of such miscalculations leading to wars that spiral out of control: think of the years leading up to the first world war.

What this adds up to is simple and sobering: the end of the world as we’ve known it. In the new, energy-centric world we have all now entered, the price of oil will dominate our lives and power will reside in the hands of those who control its global distribution.

In this new world, energy will govern our lives on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) to turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, to travel; what foods to eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil and the allure of growing crops for ethanol); for some, where to live; for others, what business to engage in; and, for all of us, when and under what circumstances to go to war or to avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.

This leads to a final observation: The most pressing decision facing the next president of the United States (along with the leaders of other major energy-consuming nations) may be how best to accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel-based energy system to a system based on climate-friendly energy alternatives.

Divide and Conquer

Ellie Keen — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The Anglo-American Imperial Project

Establishing an "Arc of Crisis"

Many would be skeptical that the Anglo-Americans would be behind terrorist acts in Iraq, such as with the British in Basra, when two British SAS soldiers were caught dressed as Arabs, with explosives and massive arsenal of weapons.[1] Why would the British be complicit in orchestrating terror in the very city in which they are to provide security? What would be the purpose behind this? That question leads us to an even more important question to ask, the question of why Iraq was occupied; what is the purpose of the war on Iraq? If the answer is, as we are often told with our daily dose of CNN, SkyNews and the statements of public officials, to spread democracy and freedom and rid the world of tyranny and terror, then it doesn’t make sense that the British or Americans would orchestrate terror.

However, if the answer to the question of why the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq occurred was not to spread democracy and freedom, but to spread fear and chaos, plunge the country into civil war, balkanize Iraq into several countries, and create an "arc of crisis" across the Middle East, enveloping neighboring countries, notably Iran, then terror is a very efficient and effective means to an end.

An Imperial Strategy

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote an article for a publication of the World Zionist Organization in which he outlined a "strategy for Israel in the 1980s." In this article, he stated, "The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel." He continued, "An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon." He continues, "In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."[2]

The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted until 1988, did not result in Oded Yinon’s desired break-up of Iraq into ethnically based provinces. Nor did the subsequent Gulf War of 1991 in which the US destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, as well as the following decade-plus of devastating sanctions and aerial bombardments by the Clinton administration. What did occur during these decades, however, were the deaths of millions of Iraqis and Iranians.

A Clean Break for a New American Century

In 1996, an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, issued a report under the think tank’s Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." In this paper, which laid out recommendations for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they state that Israel can, "Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats," as well as, "Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas," and to, "Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West."

The report recommended Israel to seize "the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," and to use "Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." It also states, "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."[3]

The authors of the report include Douglas Feith, an ardent neoconservative who went on to become George W. Bush’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2001 to 2005; David Wurmser, who was appointed by Douglas Feith after 9/11 to be part of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit and served as a Mideast Adviser to Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2007; and Meyrav Wurmser, David’s wife, who is now an official with the American think tank, the Hudson Institute.

Richard Perle headed the study, and worked on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004, and was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2004, where he played a key role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. He was also a member of several US think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is an American neoconservative think tank, whose membership and affiliations included many people who were associated with the present Bush administration, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Peter Rodman, Dov Zakheim and Robert B. Zoellick.

PNAC produced a report in September of 2000, entitled, "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," in which they outlined a blueprint for a Pax Americana, or American Empire. The report puts much focus on Iraq and Iran, stating, "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."[4] Stating that, "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," the report suggests that, "the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," however, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime change of Saddam Hussein."[5]

Engineer a Civil War for the "Three State Solution"

Shortly after the initial 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Member of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential and powerful think tank in the United States. The op-ed, titled, "The Three State Solution," published in November of 2003, stated that the "only viable strategy" for Iraq, "may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south." Citing the example of the break up of Yugoslavia, Gelb stated that the Americans and Europeans "gave the Bosnian Muslims and Croats the means to fight back, and the Serbs accepted separation." Explaining the strategy, Gelb states that, "The first step would be to make the north and south into self-governing regions, with boundaries drawn as closely as possible along ethnic lines," and to "require democratic elections within each region." Further, "at the same time, draw down American troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the transition to self-government there." Gelb then states that this policy "would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup."[6]

Following the example of Yugoslavia, as Gelb cited, would require an engineered civil war between the various ethnic groups. The US supported and funded Muslim forces in Bosnia in the early 1990s, under the leadership of the CIA-trained Afghan Mujahideen, infamous for their CIA-directed war against the Soviet Union from 1979-1989. In Bosnia, the Mujahideen were "accompanied by US Special Forces," and Bill Clinton personally approved of collaboration with "several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda." In Kosovo, years later, "Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort." The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the British Secret Intelligence Services (MI6), British SAS soldiers and American and British private security companies had the job of arming and training the KLA. Further, "The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden," and as well as that, "the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict."[7]

Could this be the same strategy being deployed in Iraq in order to break up the country for similar geopolitical reasons?

The Asia Times Online reported in 2005, that the plan of "balkanizing" Iraq into several smaller states, "is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq - an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq." It continued, "this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity. Call it Iraqification; what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war."[8]

In 2006, an "independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush," termed the "Baker Commission" after former Secretary of State, James Baker, "has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls ‘cutting and running’ or ‘staying the course’."[9]

It was also reported in 2006 that, "Iraq's federal future is already enshrined within its constitution, allowing regions to form, if not actually prescribing how this should happen," and that, "the Iraqi parliament (dominated by Shi'a and Kurds) passed a bill earlier this month [October, 2006] allowing federal regions to form (by majority vote in the provinces seeking merger)." Further, "The law, which unsurprisingly failed to win Sunni support, will be reviewed over the next 18 months in a bid to bring its opponents round." The article, however, stated that instead of a three state solution, "a system based upon five regions would seem to have more chance of succeeding. A five-region model could see two regions in the south, one based around Basra and one around the holy cities. Kurdistan and the Sunni region would remain, but Baghdad and its environs would form a fifth, metropolitan, region."[10] The author of the article was Gareth Stansfield, an Associate Fellow at Chatham House think tank in London, which preceded, works with and is the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Ethnic Cleansing Works"

In 2006, the Armed Forces Journal published an article by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, titled, "Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look." In the article, Peters explains that the best plan for the Middle East would be to "readjust" the borders of the countries. "Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected." He states that after the 2003 invasion, "Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately." However, Iraq is not the only country to fall victim to "Balkanization" in Peters’ eyes, as, "Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan," and "Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today’s Afghanistan." Further, "What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren." Peters states that "correcting borders" may be impossible, "For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once." He further makes the astonishing statement that, "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."[11]

The map of the re-drawn Middle East, initially published alongside Peters’ article, but no longer present, "has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles."[12] Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed wrote of Peters’ proposal, that "the sweeping reconfiguration of borders he proposes would necessarily involve massive ethnic cleansing and accompanying bloodshed on perhaps a genocidal scale."[13]

Federalism or Incremental Balkanization?

A month before Peters’ article was published, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Joseph Biden, a Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, in which they stated, "America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals." What is this third option? "The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group—Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab—room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."

They describe a few aspects of this plan. "The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues." Then, "The second element would be to entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn’t refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war."[14]

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007, Leslie Gelb stated that his plan for "federalizing" Iraq, "would look like this: The central government would be based on the areas where there are genuine common interests among the different Iraqi parties. That is, foreign affairs, border defense, currency and, above all, oil and gas production and revenues." And, "As for the regions, whether they be three or four or five, whatever it may be, it’s up to—all this is up to the Iraqis to decide, would be responsible for legislation, administration and internal security."[15]

The Senate subsequently passed a nonbinding resolution supporting a federal system for Iraq, which has still yet to be enacted upon, because it stated that this resolution was something that had to be enacted upon by the Iraqis, so as not to be viewed as "something that the United States was going to force down their throats." Further, "when Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he testified in favor of federalism. In his private conversations with senators, he also supported the idea," yet, while in Baghdad, the Ambassador "blasted the resolution."[16] Could this be a method of manipulation? If the American Embassy in Baghdad promotes a particular solution for Iraq, it would likely be viewed by Iraqis as a bad choice and in the interest of the Americans. So, if the Ambassador publicly bashes the resolution from Iraq, which he did, it conveys the idea that the current administration is not behind it, which could make Iraqis see it as a viable alternative, and perhaps in their interests. For Iraqi politicians, embracing the American view on major issues is political (and often actual) suicide. The American Embassy in Baghdad publicly denouncing a particular strategy gives Iraqi politicians public legitimacy to pursue it.

This resolution has still not gone through all the processes in Congress, and may, in fact, have been slipped into another bill, such as a Defense Authorization Act. However, the efforts behind this bill are larger than the increasingly irrelevant US Congress.

Also in 2007, another think tank called for the managed "break-up of Iraq into three separate states with their own governments and representatives to the United Nations, but continued economic cooperation in a larger entity modeled on the European Union."[17] In a startling admission by former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated in 2007 that the "United States has "no strategic interest" in a united Iraq," and he also suggested "that the United States shouldn't necessarily keep Iraq from splitting up."[18]

Conclusion

Clearly, whatever the excuse, or whatever the means of dividing Iraq, it is without a doubt in the Anglo-American strategy for Iraq to balkanize the country. Saying that what is being proposed is not balkanization, but federalism, is a moot point. This is because reverting to a more federal system where provinces have greater autonomy would naturally separate the country along ethno-religious boundaries. The Kurds would be in the north, the Sunnis in the centre, and the Shi’ites in the south, with all the oil. The disproportionate provincial resources will create animosity between provinces, and the long-manipulated ethnic differences will spill from the streets into the political sphere. As tensions grow, as they undoubtedly would, between the provinces, there would be a natural slide to eventual separation. Disagreements over power sharing in the federal government would lead to its eventual collapse, and the strategy of balkanization would have been achieved with the appearance of no outside involvement.

NOTES

[1] Global Research, Iraqi MP accuses British Forces in Basra of "Terrorism". Al Jazeera: September 20, 2005: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920...

[2] Linda S. Heard, The Prophecy of Oded Yinon. Counter Punch: April 25, 2006: http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html

[3] Richard Perle, et. al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies: June 1996: http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

[4] PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000: Page 17

[5] PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000: Page 14

[6] Leslie Gelb, The Three State Solution. The New York Times: November 25, 2003:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6559/threestate_solution.html?breadcrumb=...

[7] Michel Chossudovsky, "Osamagate." Global Research: October 9, 2001:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

[8] Pepe Escobar, Exit strategy: Civil war. Asia Times Online: June 10, 2005:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF10Ak03.html

[9] Sarah Baxter, America ponders cutting Iraq in three. The Times: October 8, 2006: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article664974.ece

[10] Gareth Stansfield, The only solution left for Iraq: a five-way split. The Telegraph: October 29, 2006: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/29/do...

[11] Ralph Peters, Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look. Armed Forces Journal: June 2006: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

[12] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East". Global Research: November 18, 2006: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882

[13] Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, US Army Contemplates Redrawing Middle East Map

to Stave Off Looming Global Meltdown. Dissident Voice: September 1, 2006: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept06/Ahmed01.htm

[14] Leslie Gelb and Joseph Biden, Jr., Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq. The New York Times: May 1, 2006: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10569/unity_through_autonomy_in_iraq.html...

[15] Leslie Gelb, Leslie Gelb before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The CFR: January 23, 2007: http://www.cfr.org/publication/12489/leslie_gelb_before_the_senate_forei...

[16] Bernard Gwertzman, Gelb: Federalism Is Most Promising Way to End Civil War in Iraq. CFR: October 16, 2007: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14531/gelb.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325...

[17] Robin Wright, Nonpartisan Group Calls for Three-State Split in Iraq. The Washington Post: August 17, 2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR200708...

[18] AP, French report: Former U.N. envoy Bolton says U.S. has 'no strategic interest' in united Iraq. International Herald Tribune: January 29, 2007: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/29/europe/EU-GEN-France-US-Iraq.p...