[NYTr] Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Corporate Focus - Sep 17, 2007
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2007/000267.html>.

Comment on this and other columns at: 
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog


Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran

By Robert Weissman

Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who 
live in the reality-based world: The Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post 
that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether
the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad 
swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of 
oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Greenspan's remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are 
eyebrow-raising for their directness:

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass 
destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned
about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for
the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is
politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq
war is largely about oil."

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue 
of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the 
point," he told the Guardian.

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he
actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the
express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, 
writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war 
was an oil grab."

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of 
"making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to 
work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately 
we will."

There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely
have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French
and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is 
making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate 
with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate 
aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those 
legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the 
United States and other industrial countries need.

"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which 
appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not 
be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical 
forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the 
acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with 
international security."

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over 
regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear 
weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only 
pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns 
about Iran as "truisms.")

But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political
life.

The Iraq was "is not about oil" became a mantra among the pro-war crowd 
in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following 
months. A small sampling --

Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil 
fields is a "wrong impression." "I have a deep desire for peace. That's 
what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I
don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and
murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And
so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country
never has any intention to conquer anybody."

Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, "if Saddam's primary 
export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not 
be going through this situation," said: "This cannot be further from
the truth. … He is a threat to his neighbors. He's a threat to American 
security interest. That is what the president has in mind." She 
continued: "This is not about oil."

Colin Powell: "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a 
dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against 
the Arab populations."

Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not about oil and it's not about religion."

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access 
Iraqi oil fields: "there's just nothing to it."

Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: "I have heard that 
allegation and I simply reject it."

General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, "It's not 
about oil."

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: "It was not about oil."

"It's not about the oil," the Financial Times reported Richard Perle 
shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: "This is not about oil."

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "The only thing I can 
tell you is this war is not about oil."

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "This is not about oil. This is 
about international peace and security."

Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: "This is not about oil. That was 
very clear. … This is about America, and America's position in the 
world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed."

And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard 
Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a "liar" (or at very 
least a "fool"), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated 
in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.

What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, 
other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass 
self-delusion?

Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction 
to oil -- not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other 
reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the 
greatest urgency.

More and more people are making the connections -- but there's no 
outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests 
that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: 
The No War, No Warming actions www.nowarnowarming.org planned for 
October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.


Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational 
Monitor, <http://www.multinationalmonitor.org> and director of
Essential Action <http://www.essentialaction.org>.

(c) Robert Weissman

-------------------------
Focus on the Corporation is a regular column by Robert Weissman. Please
feel free to forward the column to friends, repost it on other lists or
non-commercial, non-profit websites, or publish it in non-profit print
outlets. (For-profit outlets, please contact rob at essential.org).

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
corp-focus at lists.essential.org. To subscribe, unsubscribe or change
your address to corp-focus, go to:
<http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/corp-focus> or send an
e-mail message to corp-focus-admin at lists.essential.org with your
request.

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at:
<www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog> and
<http://www.corporatepredators.org>.

Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to
comment on a columns, go to: <www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog>
or send a message to rob at essential.org.