Re: Redrawing the Middle East (fwd)

["Clement M. Henry" <chenry@mail.la.utexas.edu>]

Here is a provactive analysis --CH

Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:28:02 +0000
From: N Janardhan <meejana@hotmail.com>

Apart from removing from power a ruler who has steadfastly refused to toe
the American line and challenged American strategic interests in the
region, Bush has a vested oil interest in Iraq that he hopes would be
served with a US military occupation -- meaning absolute control of Iraq
and its resources and restored American domination of the international
oil market.

Bush is hoping to recover the $100-$150 billion the US is expected to
spend on a war and military occupation of Iraq through benefits to
American oil companies which are raring to go into lucrative Iraqi oil
fields after having been denied entry since 1990.

Obviously, one of the first priorities of Bush in a hypothetical
Saddamless Iraq will be to freeze or nullify altogether all oil agreements
that the present Baghdad government has signed with international (non-US)
companies since the end of the 1991 war over Kuwait.

French, Russian, Chinese and Indian companies are among those who have
signed such agreements, and US oil giants are frustrated at not being
given a share of the Iraqi oil pie, given assumptions that Iraq could hold
oil reserves more than even Saudi Arabia (as mentioned in the thread 14
article).

Equally important is resumed American trade with Iraq. US companies have
been deprived of up to $4 billion to $5 billion of annual exports to Iraq
when the UN imposed sweeping trade sanctions against Iraq in August 1990.
An indication of the loss is clear when given that Iraq spent about $500
million in imports of just American vehicles and spare parts every year.

However, Bush appears to have had to make some compromises.

Figuring high in the horse-trading and persuasion that went on among the
big powers at the UN Security Council before Resolution 1441 was adopted
was reported haggling over who would get what share of a post-Saddam
Iraq's oil resources. As yet unknown is the nature of the assurances that
the US offered to its big power colleagues in the council.

But Bush has offered a public assurance to Putin that the US would not
undermine Russian interests in Iraq when Saddam is removed from power.
That is taken to mean that the US would perhaps make sure Russia recovers
the $7 billion or so Baghdad reportedly owes Moscow from the days of the
1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Of course, being kept mouthwatering but at arms length from the Iraqi pie
are also British firms. Obviously there is a Bush assurance to Blair that
British companies would have their share of Iraq when it falls under US
military control.

Analysts in the region have also gone as far as citing Bush’s own
commercial interests as well as those of some people around him -- Dick
Cheney included.

In all this, however, political considerations appear to have taken a
backseat. Far from strengthening reformist forces in Iran and a weakening
of radical Islamic forces throughout the Middle East as envisaged it could
fuel anti-American rage, embolden radicals, weaken US allies and lead to
more terrorism. Gulf regimes fear that latent fundamentalism will raise
its ugly head, create social and political instability and threaten the
reigning governments.

Saddam's son Uday had written in 'Babel' some months ago that US
plan envisages making ‘‘Jordan an alternative country for the
Palestinians, dividing Saudi Arabia into three parts, and scrapping
Bahrain’s identity and reattaching it to Persia.’’ Iran too was mentioned.

Second, the US plan in Iran and Iraq is also possibly aimed at maintaining
Israel’s military superiority in the region. Israel’s ardent opponents are
not so much the military-wise primitive Palestinians or their ill-equipped
resistance forces in the occupied territories, but Iraq, Iran (Sharon:
‘Attack Iran the day after Iraq’) and Iran-backed Hizbollah.

 Possibly, the age of war with imperialistic and expansionist designs is
over, though invasion of Kuwait was an aberration. The possibility of
Iraq, Iran or anyone else in the region matching Israel’s technological
sophistication or threatening the existence of the state is hard to come
true. If a remote possibility exists, Saddam is the last threat (only to
Israel; not to the Arab countries and certainly not to the West). Doing
away with him makes Israel that much more secure. Hizbollah can be handled
with pressure on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Palestine can then be created on
Israel’s terms, both in terms of territory, timing and even leadership.

If the Israeli factor is underplayed, then the theory that oil is one of
the main factors behind US’s design in Iraq fits in well.

 Regards

N Janardhan (UAE)