The Global Shell & Pea Game
Tanya Cariina Hsu**
Shocking in its passivity, the world is
quietly watching to see what the United States will do about
Iran. No one is willing to take affirmative action, draw the
line, and say no; the US takes this as tacit approval to go
full steam ahead in moving to its next step toward its
conquest of the Middle East and its energy resources, in
order to control the world's economic supply. The war has
never been about weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, or
bringing democracy to a people who would greet the
"liberators" with flowers. Prior to the "New Pearl Harbor"
of Sept. 11, 2001, the US already had attack plans drawn up
and ready for a bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The
neoconservatives were merely the Bush cheerleading team,
touting the wars freely across the media, in personal
readiness of the increased military spending to come their
way via massive defense contract commissions, especially
linked to the seemingly ever-threatened Israel.
In 2001, the US was the
Taleban's second largest donor; it gave $124.2 million up
until May. Ostensibly for agricultural aid and humanitarian
assistance, such largesse was a seduction of the Taleban
into allowing American UNOCAL to build a pipeline from the
energy rich Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and out to the
warm waters of the Gulf and Indian Ocean. The Taleban
rejected the offer. In August 2001, Christina Rocca of the
US State Department warned the Taleban, "Accept our offer of
a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
The Taleban instead signed a deal to build with Bridas, an
Argentinean company. The following month, on Sept. 11, the
Pentagon and Twin Towers were attacked and the US indeed
bombed Afghanistan in October. Hamid Karzai, former UNOCAL
consultant and translator for the Taleban, was installed as
head of the country, the previous pipeline contract with
Argentina was nullified, and the US was fully in charge.
In 2000, Saddam Hussein had
announced his own death sentence: He was switching the
currency for oil in Iraq from petrodollars to petroeuros.
Within a week of coming into office, Dick Cheney's secret
"Energy Task Force" was examining Iraqi oil field and
pipeline maps, and their priority No. 1, announced in May of
2001 stated, "Middle East oil producers will remain central
to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of US
international energy policy." That's diplomatic speak for
foreign national military policy and interest. Once having
switched to euros, Saddam Hussein had cut the US out of his
market, the second largest reserves in the world. Suddenly
his WMDs were "imminent" and America had to stop the
potential mushroom cloud. In 2003, the US attacked the
threatening and now armed-and-dangerous Saddam Hussein. They
did find Saddam's chemical weapons: A few baking soda boxes
in one of his refrigerators.
A year before the bombing of
Iraq, the State Department demanded that Iraq "should be
open to international oil companies", meaning the USA. The
new Iraqi government voided all previous oil agreements with
other nations and switched petroeuros back to petrodollars.
This month the new Iraqi hydrocarbon law goes into effect
whereby the "international companies" such as Exxon Mobil,
Chevron, Conoco-Phillips and Royal Dutch Shell, under
Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), receive up to 75
percent of Iraq's oil profits indefinitely until the
companies decide they've been paid enough reimbursement for
any initial rebuilding investments. After that, they will
receive an unheard-of in the Middle East 20 percent of
profits, twice the industry standard. Mission accomplished.
Six weeks ago, after a year of
speculation, Iran changed its oil bourse from petrodollars
to petroeuros. US rhetoric against the leadership of Iran
was therefore ratcheted up in latter 2006. First,
Ahmadinejad's call to erase the Zionist political entity
from the pages of time was translated in to "wipe Israel off
the map", alarming the world to a specter of a new
holocaust. Second, Iran's nuclear weaponry intentions were
disclosed -- a new imminent threat -- but the American
taxpayers weren't buying that one so easily this time. Thus,
the new story of Iranian supplies to insurgents in Iraq is
told at bedtime (less than one percent of attacks on US
troops in Iraq are by Shiites).
It's a new spin on the US
Iran-Contra era: In 1980, the US sold arms from anywhere,
friend or foe, to both Iraq and Iran just as long as they
would fight each other out. It did not matter whether they
were Shiite or Sunni -- they were all Muslims and who knew
the difference? When it appeared that Iran was winning the
Iran-Iraq war in 1987, the US increased its funding to
Saddam and supplied him with the intelligence he needed to
attack Iran's navy.
The US is selling the intended
"non-war" on Iran as a religious necessity, Iraq versus
Iran, Sunni versus Shiite. Don't believe it. Dick Cheney,
Condoleezza Rice and William Gates have all visited the
region to alert Gulf governments to the threat from the
Shiites in Iran. They sold the threat of Saddam Hussein's
attack on the Kingdom in 1990 by showing satellite images
doctored to reveal amassing troops on the Saudi border.
Leaders in the Middle East may
want to believe that this is now all about a growing Shiite
crescent threat. A natural emotional reaction given
historical animosity. The US wants the Sunni leaders to
believe that it's about Islamic divisions, knowing fully it
may appeal to their sentiments. Moreover, America will
supply whatever it can muster to convince Sunni leaders of
precisely such a concern, evidencing whatever it can to
prove such a threat, as it did in 1990. And so it goes
again: Iran-Iraq all over. Let the Sunnis and Shiites fight
it out whilst we carry on with securing that oil.
US Air Force carriers are now in
the Gulf. Extra Patriot missiles are in place, minesweepers
sent out, and President Bush has ordered oil reserves to be
stockpiled. War games took place in Alabama a year ago
(STRATCOM Conplan 8022) theorizing a dirty-bomb attack, and
a consequential nuclear aerial response by the US against an
un-named Asian country. Reasons have been produced --
Iranian arms killing Sunnis in Iraq, which as any illegal
arms dealer can attest show nothing but point of
manufacture, not origin of. And, the Iranians have dared to
switch their oil trading currency to those pesky petroeuros.
It's all about controlling the
energy, religious or political threats sold as a shell and
pea game of global proportions.
Oh, and that Afghanistan pipeline
that was supposed to have been built? One small problem: It
hasn't been done. The only alternative for the US is now to
go through Iran's existing pipelines. Much faster.
**By Tanya Cariina Hsu is Saudi-US political
analyst originally from London. She lives in Riyadh.
