Re: ...there may be some argument as to whether the "concern" for Israel takes precedence over world oil control which has been an American ambition since WW2 and before that a British one.
I know you know my view on this but I'll restate it nonetheless: the US's unremitting meddling in the Middle East doesn't stem from the US's oil needs --especially from 1945 to 1995 when the oil market was but a mono-/oligo-psony where the major oil consuming markets/countries call the shots. As I noted on other threads, all Mideast oil producing countries have ONLY oil and gas to export. They don't manufacture anything, they don't host world-class financial hubs (like Singapore, eg) and, because of religious interdicts, tourism and gambling are mere fledgling, underfunded industries (see Saudi Arabia). Therefore, it was never a matter for the US to be "ambitious" or "aggressive" in securing a steady flow of oil from the Arabian Peninsula to its home market for the very simple reason that "selling one's oil to the US" was the ONLY GAME IN TOWN to play for Arab producers!
The problem the US faced with Muslim oil producers, however, was its unconditional support of Zionism and Israel which conflicted with the Muslim regimes' tenet to keep Jerusalem as a Muslim sanctuary and, incidentally, to uphold Palestinians' rights. That's what the still-classified meeting between FDR and King Saud aboard the USS Quincy in 1945 was purported to solve. It was a Faustian deal of sorts offered to the Saudis since the latter were asked to sell their Muslim souls to the "American Devil" by giving up Jerusalem in exchange for petrodollars and military protection. Such a Faustian bargain worked pretty well with the two branches of Islam until 1979: with the Saudi dynasty in Ryadh and the Pahlavi one in Tehran, the Zionists managed to control both Sunni and Shia Islam with Quisling regimes.... Oil becomes an important collateral issue in this grand, ideological scheme only insofar as hostile, anti-Zionist factions could topple the US Quislings in Ryadh and Tehran and launch a reconquest of Jerusalem/Palestine. BUT EVEN THEN, the danger for the US would not be the prospect of having its Mideast oil cut off overnight. No, the real fear --actually the current fear about Iran and Ahmadinejad-- is the possibility for anti-Zionist oil producers to sell their oil to others (China, India,...) and use the money as they see fit!
It's not --never was-- the loss of Arab oil that worried Zionist America. It's the loss of the zillions of petrodollars invested in London and NY that might be used otherwise --to buy weapons and wage war against Israel(*).
Re: Indeed, it would seem the "concern" for Israel dovetails neatly into the program for control over the oil and, furthermore, provides a religious facade, even an excuse, for US interference in the region.
Of course, I disagree: as I explained above, it's rather the other way around:
Indeed, it would seem the "concern" for oil dovetails neatly into the program for Zionist control over the Holy Land and, furthermore, provides a rational/economic facade, even a vital interest, for US interference in the region.
Gus
(*) Message 22017007 |
