Shell Games. Are They Really Oil Wars?

[L. Coyote]

July 9, 2008 - http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh07092008.html

Shell Games. Are They Really Oil Wars?
By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH

A most widely-cited factor behind the recent U.S. wars of choice is said to be oil. “No Blood for Oil” has been a rallying cry for most of the opponents of the war. While some of these opponents argue that the war is driven by the U.S. desire for cheap oil, others claim that it is prompted by big oil’s wish for high oil prices and profits. Interestingly, most antiwar forces use both claims interchangeably without paying attention to the fact that they are diametrically-opposed assertions.

Not only do the two arguments contradict each other, but each argument is also wanting and unconvincing on its own grounds; not because the U.S. does not wish for cheap oil, or because Big Oil does not desire higher oil prices, but because war is no longer the way to control or gain access to energy resources. Colonial-type occupation or direct control of energy resources is no longer efficient or economical and has, therefore, been abandoned for more than four decades.

The view that recent U.S. military adventures in the Middle East and the broader Central Asia are driven by energy considerations is further reinforced by the dubious theory of Peak Oil, which maintains that, having peaked, world oil resources are now dwindling and that, therefore, war power and military strength are key to access or control of the shrinking energy resources.

In this study I will first argue that the Peak Oil theory is unscientific, unrealistic, and perhaps even fraudulent. I will then show that war and military force are no longer the necessary or appropriate means to gain access to sources of energy, and that resorting to military measures can, indeed, lead to costly, not cheap, oil. Next, I will demonstrate that, despite the lucrative spoils of war resulting from high oil prices and profits, Big Oil prefers peace and stability, not war and geopolitical turbulence, in global energy markets. Finally, I will argue

[AdHocSolver]

1. The fallacy in this author's argument is his premise that oil, military, & financial interests...

as well as OPEC's interests, are all at odds. This is his manufactured straw dog.

His argument against the validity of Peak Oil is irrelevant. The price of oil is manipulated by the oil companies and OPEC. The oil futures markets are manipulated by the same groups who control the oil companies and OPEC. Enron boosted its stock price by "inventing" profits that didn't exist, so that investors would throw money at its stock.

Saddam Hussein was going to thwart OPEC policies and sell oil independent of OPEC and the oil companies. That is why the US went to war against Iraq. Saddam would have upset their control of oil prices.

The US went to war against Afghanistan because the Taliban wanted a better deal from the West over a proposed gas pipeline through that country. Once the Taliban were overthrown and a cooperative puppet government signed the pipeline deal, the US gave up the search for bin Laden and invaded Iraq.

The oil companies, OPEC, and our military/industrial complex are all intertwined through stock ownership, directorships on their executive boards, and the banks. They have common interests and work together. They are all profiting from the Iraq war.

The push to invade Iran is due to Iran's efforts to circumvent OPEC in selling its oil. Iran has also announced it will accept currencies other than U.S. dollars. The Iranians see the rapid devaluation of the dollar and want to be paid in a stronger currency. This is the reason for the big push to invade before Bush leaves office.

The oil prices and OPEC and oil company profits increase with instability in the Middle East. So do Halliburton profits and all of the companies that have raided the U.S. Treasury in the past few years. That is why we are paying $4.00+ per gallon for gasoline. These corporations are all working together and profiting from it.