tagged w/ oil pipeline
-
y Kevin Zeese - Posted on 20 August 2011
The U.S. media is not reporting it but the largest civil resistance action in history for dealing with climate change begins today. At issue is a pipeline that would bring oil from tarsands in Canada into the United States. If it occurs it will add a massive amount of carbon to the atmosphere that will put the world over the tipping point. The decision on whether to build the pipeline is up to President Obama. Congress has no role in the decision making.
Massive protest at White House against Alberta tar sands pipeline
Campaigners say the two-week protest will be the biggest green civil disobedience in a generation
By Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent.
The Guardian, guardian.co.uk,
August 20, 2011
White House
The White House Photograph: Ron Edmonds/AP
A protest at the White House against a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands is emerging as the biggest green civil disobedience campaign in a generation, organisers said.
Approximately 1,500 people signed up to court arrest during the two-week action outside the White House, which begins on Saturday morning.
The campaign is seen as a last chance to persuade Barack Obama to stop a planned 1,600-mile pipeline that will carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta across rich American farmland to the Gulf of Mexico.
The State Department is expect to produce its final environmental analysis of the pipeline by the end of the month. Obama will then have 90 days to decide whether going ahead with the project would be in the national interest.
The Keystone XL project has been a major focus of environmental protests. Greenhouse gas emissions of tar sands crude are 40% higher than conventional oil, and the open-pit mining has devastated Alberta's boreal forest.
Recent pipeline accidents in Michigan and Montana have also deepened fears about potential dangers along the pipeline's route through prime American farmland.
The veteran environmentalist Bill McKibben, who is leading the protest, describes it as the biggest civil disobedience action in environmental circles for years.
It also puts Obama on the spot to make good on his promises as a presidential candidate in 2008 to act on climate change.
Congress failed to act on the main plank of Obama's green agenda – climate change legislation – and pressure from Tea Party activists has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to delay or weaken regulations on dealing with climate change.
This time though, Obama has freedom of action – or at least that is McKibben's hope.
Obama must personally sign off on the pipeline, if it is to go ahead. "We think we may have a chance because for once Obama gets to make the call himself. He has to sign – or not sign – the permit," McKibben said.
"As environmentalists this is the one clean test we are ever going to get of Obama's real commitment to climate issues."
The protest will begin at about 11am on Saturday morning when a first group of 100 activists will gather at the gates of the White House, an area that is supposed to be kept clear, and wait to be arrested.
Unlike other campaigns, the next fortnight's actions have geographical reach – with protesters descending on Washington from areas along the pipeline's route.
One group from eastern Texas, has hired an RV to make the journey.
The campaign against the pipeline has steadily been gaining in momentum amid concerns about pipeline safety.
The pipeline route crosses rich farmland and important aquifers.
Campaigners argue the thick heavy tar sands crude could do far more damage than conventional oil, and that the State Department has rushed through its environmental review.
The oil industry, meanwhile, pushed back with a study this week claiming the pipeline would create 20,000 new construction jobs.y Kevin Zeese - Posted on 20 August 2011
The U.S. media is not reporting it but the... more
-
-
Colonel Qaddafi has ordered the disruption of Libyan oil exports by destroying pipelines to the Mediterranean, sources tell Time's Robert Baer:
"There's been virtually no reliable information coming out of Tripoli, but a source close to the Gaddafi regime I did manage to get hold of told me the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They will start by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos."
Oil has been spiking on fears of a Libyan disruption. Already today the country declared force majeur, effectively canceling oil contracts.
Libya produces 1.9 million barrels of oil per day.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/qadaffi-pipelines-2011-2#ixzz1EjwWJF4eColonel Qaddafi has ordered the disruption of Libyan oil exports by destroying... more
-
-
t's one of the last bastions of Canadian wilderness: the Great Bear Rainforest, on BC's north and central Pacific coast. Home to humpback whales, wild salmon, wolves, grizzlies, and the legendary spirit bear - this spectacular place is now threatened by a proposal from Enbridge to bring an oil pipeline and supertankers to this fragile and rugged coast. The plan is to pump over half a million barrels a day of unrefined bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands over the Rockies, through the heartland of BC - crossing a thousand rivers and streams in the process - to the Port of Kitimat, in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest. From there, supertankers would ply the rough and dangerous waters of the BC coast en route to Asia and the United States. Dubbed the Northern Gateway Pipeline, the project is of concern for three main reasons: 1. It would facilitate the expansion of the Tar Sands, hooking emerging Asian economies on the world's dirtiest oil; 2. the risks from the pipeline itself; 3. the danger of introducing oil supertankers for the first time to this part of the BC coast.t's one of the last bastions of Canadian wilderness: the Great Bear Rainforest,... more
-
-
'No comment, no comment, no comment,' no matter how many times you ask
Some days, for political, diplomatic or security reasons, a White House press secretary can comment not one bit on the topic of the day.
Today was such a day, when President Bush's spokeswoman, Dana Perino, came up against questions about reports that U.S. commandos conducted raids in Syria that left at least eight people dead.
Here's how the questioning went -- and the non-answer answers from the White House briefing room podium:
Question: What is the likelihood of more raids into Syria like the one we saw this weekend?
Perino: The United States government has not commented on reports about that and I'm not able to here, either.
Q: So we've talked about Pakistan, the raids into Pakistan, whether by ground or by air. And there's been some acknowledgment by U.S. officials that those are happening. We're now seeing this sort of thing spread to other countries. Can you not -- you can't shed any light on why, when, where, how, whether we're going to...
Perino: I can't comment on it at all, no.
Q: Have you heard anything about whether the target was successful, that it hit the target?
Perino: I'm not going to comment in any way on this; I'm not able to comment on that.
Q: You're not even able to say that there has been some decision taken by the administration that 'If you guys can't clean up your act, we will clean it up for you'?
Perino: I'm not going to comment on the reports about this, no, I'm not. Anybody else?
Q: Can you comment on Syria's protest?
Perino: I'm not going to comment on it at all. This could be a really short briefing.
Q: Has anybody from the White House spoken to anybody from Syria?
Perino: I don't know. I don't know.
Q: Let me ask you this one: You have another government making claims. At some point, you either have to confirm or deny the claims they're making, no?
Perino: Jim, all I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident, and I'm not going to do so. You can come up here and try to beat it out of me, but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today. Or tomorrow.
Q: What about another agency, nobody -- if it comes, it's going to come from here, and so it's not going to -- nothing is going to come out of this?
Perino: I don't believe anybody is commenting on this at all.
Q: Dana, why can't you comment? Is it a reason for national security, or is it political? I mean, why --
Perino: To give you an answer to that would be commenting in some way on it, and I'm not going to do it.
Q: But, I mean, Dana, you can't give us anything? I mean, this is a major issue --
Perino: Nothing.
Q: This is a major issue --
Perino: I understand the reports are serious, but it's not something I'm going to comment on in any way.
And with that, the questioning moved elsewhere.
— James Gerstenzang'No comment, no comment, no comment,' no matter how many times you ask... more
-
-
Reuters quoted the spokesman for the Iraqi government this morning as saying the raid was meant to target bad guys conducting operations against Iraqi forces. Ali Dabbagh said:
"The attacked area was the scene of activities of terrorist groups operating from Syria against Iraq. ... The latest of these groups ... killed 13 police recruits in an [Iraqi] border village. Iraq had asked Syria to hand over this group which uses Syria as a base for its terrorist activities."
Dabbagh said Iraq doesn't want the incident to damage relations with Syria, which recently agreed to send an ambassador to Baghdad for the first time in decades.
But there were indications that the raid could create geopolitical complications. For one thing, the operation could throw a wrench into U.S. and Iraqi efforts to pen an agreement that would legitimize the continued presence of American troops in Iraq.
"This is a flagrant violation of the new [security] agreement between Iraq and the U.S.," Syrian ministry of information spokeswoman Reem Haddad told Al Jazeera. "Because one of the points of that agreement is that they do not attack bordering countries."
The attack, which killed eight people , drew condemnation from U.S. friends as well as foes.
Staunch Syrian ally Iran, which holds enormous sway over the Baghdad government and opposes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, condemned the U.S. operation. "We condemn any attack which leads to the killing of innocents and civilians," foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Tehran on Monday.
The pro-U.S. faction within the Lebanese government condemned the U.S. move. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused the U.S., which funds his military, of an "unacceptable" violation of Syrian sovereignty. "Any military attack against an Arab country or on a small country by a larger country is an act we reject," said a statement issued by his office.
More details emerged about the incident. Syrian television quoted a fisherman injured in the raid as saying heavy gunfire heralded the four helicopters' arrival.
"The firing lasted about 15 minutes, and when I tried to leave the area on my motorcycle, I was hit by a bullet in the right arm," the man, in his 40s, was quoted as saying.
Syrian television also showed what it described as the injured wife of the building's guard, in a hospital bed, saying that two helicopters landed while two remained in the air during the attack. Reuters quoted the spokesman for the Iraqi government this morning as saying the raid... more
-
-
Reporting from Beirut and Washington -- U.S. forces ferried by helicopter Sunday crossed five miles into Syria from Iraq and launched a commando raid that left at least eight people dead, Syrian news outlets and sources reported.
Syria has long been a conduit for foreign fighters attempting to slip into Iraq to attack U.S. troops. American officials say that military action in Iraq has reduced the number of those fighters. And tense relations between Damascus and the Iraqi government have improved enough that this month Syria sent an ambassador to Baghdad for the first time since the early 1980s.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, the U.S. has shown a greater willingness to launch cross-border clandestine operations in another military theater, Pakistan, to protect U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan or to capture or kill Islamic militants.
The official Syrian Arab News Agency said U.S. military helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal. The area is about 60 miles southeast of Dayr az Zawr, which is considered a haven for Sunni Arab militants that infiltrate Iraq and is near the site of a Sept. 6, 2007, Israeli airstrike on what U.S. officials have alleged was a plutonium plant built with the assistance of North Korea.
The news agency said four helicopters crossed into Syrian airspace about 4:45 p.m. local time and fired on people who appeared to be laborers at their jobs on the second day of the Syrian workweek. It said a man named Daoud Mohammed Abdullah, his wife and four of his sons were killed. The two other victims were not immediately identified.
"All victims were civilians," Syria's Dunya private television said.
People told the news media that they saw two helicopters land and eight U.S. soldiers get off. Syrian state television said the troops stormed a building.
There have been few reports of the U.S. military firing across the Syrian border since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Sunday's attack, if confirmed, would appear to be the first time that U.S. troops have launched an attack inside Syria.
Reporting from Beirut and Washington -- U.S. forces ferried by helicopter Sunday... more
-
-
DAYTON, Ohio—Who says John McCain doesn't have a tight campaign message? At his rally here Monday, the message was clear and pithy:
Boo.
In three acts, McCain presented the Obama Horror Show. If Obama is elected, your taxes will go up, you'll be unsafe from foreign threats, and, especially if Congress goes Democratic, you will be forced to endure an era of unchecked liberalism.
Obama aides have long argued that their candidate offers hope while McCain offers fear. Judging by the balance of messages both candidates are giving voters before Election Day, it's hard to disagree.
The minute McCain took the stage at a high-school gymnasium in Dayton, he unspooled the chain of nightmares Obama would unleash after the inauguration. McCain heralded "Joe the Plumber," as he has for the last two weeks, to make the case that Obama's tax policies were aimed at redistributing wealth. He also pointed to a 2001 interview in which (so the McCain campaign says) Obama claimed one of the tragedies of the civil rights era was that it failed to redistribute wealth. "That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor," he told a crowd of about 2,000, which didn't fill the gym. "It means taking your money and giving it to someone else."
Since McCain has been labeling Obama a redistributor, it was certainly convenient that Obama used a version of that word in a sentence in an interview seven years ago. But it's hard to see how the new attack is going to change the bleak political landscape for McCain. DAYTON, Ohio—Who says John McCain doesn't have a tight campaign message? At... more
-
-
One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.
Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.
The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?
During the five decades of the cold war, when Americans had a more Manichaean view of the world, we did, from time to time, cut off relations with particularly odious leaders such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung or Albania's bloodthirsty and maniacal strongman, Enver Hoxha. But for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now. JFK negotiated a nuclear Test-Ban Treaty with his mortal adversary, Nikita Khrushchev, just one year after the two narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps more dramatically, Nixon, the greatest anticommunist crusader of his time, went to China in 1972 to repair a more than 20-year rupture with Mao Zedong that he believed no longer worked for America.
All of these cold-war presidents embraced a foreign-policy maxim memorialized by one of the toughest and most experienced leaders of our time, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, who defended his discussions with Yasir Arafat by declaring, "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." Why should the United States approach the world any differently now? Especially now? As Americans learned all too dramatically on 9/11 and again during the financial crisis this autumn, we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances. And when others—China, India, Brazil—are rising to share power in the world with us, America needs to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and foes alike.
The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America's acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack... more
-
-
Syrian television shows a survivor of what the Syrian media reported was a U.S. military attack on a building site in the Syrian village of Al-Sukkiraya
Sunday's surprise raid by helicopter-borne U.S. troops in eastern Syria raises at least three key questions. Given that the U.S. is saying the number of volunteer fighters infiltrating Iraq from Syria has dwindled significantly in the past 18 months, why was this action deemed necessary? Does the raid signal a shift in U.S. tactics in the region? And with just over a week before the U.S. presidential election, why now?
Related
Stories
* Why Syria Will Keep Provoking Israel
In what is thought to be the first such incursion from the Iraq side since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, at least four U.S. helicopters crossed Iraq's western border with Syria and attacked what officials in Damascus said was a half-constructed building in Sukkariyeh Farm, 5 miles from the Syrian frontier town of Abu Qamal. Eight people were reported to have been killed in the raid. Damascus "condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible," said the Syrian government in a statement that went on to demand that the Iraqi government launch an investigation into "this serious violation."
The flow of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq was Washington's chief complaint with Damascus following the 2003 invasion. Analysis of al-Qaeda documents seized by American troops in Sinjar in northern Iraq last year suggested that 90% of foreign fighters entering Iraq came from Syria. However, the figures have dropped significantly, according to U.S. officials. In July, an estimated 20 fighters per month were reported to be entering Iraq, an 80% drop compared with a year earlier. In September, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that the number of foreign fighters crossing from Syria into Iraq was down. She ascribed the reduction to the efforts of coalition forces and the Iraqis rather than a change of policy by Syria.
Last week, Major General John Kelly, commander of coalition forces in western Iraq, said security along Iraq's borders with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan was fairly tight but that the Syrian frontier remained porous. "The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign-fighter movement." He told Pentagon reporters via teleconference last week, "We're doing much more work along the Syrian border than we've done in the past," adding that Iraqi security and intelligence forces "feel that al-Qaeda operatives and others operate, live pretty openly on the Syrian side."
Cross-border strikes are an increasingly common tactic by U.S. forces operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. U.S. missile-launching drones reportedly killed at least 20 people on Sunday in Pakistan's South Waziristan province close to the Afghan border, an area suspected of harboring al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Andrew Exum, a former U.S. Army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as founder of the influential Abu Muqawama counterinsurgency blog, suggests that the American action in Syria shows that the tactic may simply have been exported. "The precedent has already been established of crossing borders into safe havens. Operational commanders would have to be thinking, If we can do it in Pakistan, why can't we do it in Syria?" he says.
Experts with knowledge of the region say they suspect the raid into Syria was conducted by a U.S. special-operations unit rather than regular military forces. They cite Task Force 88, a hunter-killer team, as the unit that most likely carried out the attack. By having such clandestine teams carrying out these strikes, the U.S. government restricts how many people inside the government are aware of the details, enabling Pentagon spokesmen to honestly say they know nothing about them.
cont.....Syrian television shows a survivor of what the Syrian media reported was a U.S.... more
-
-
(CNN) -- Federal prosecutors in Tennessee have charged two men with plotting a "killing spree" against African-Americans that would have been capped with an attempt to kill Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
Federal prosecutors charged two men with making threats against Barack Obama.
The U.S. attorney's office in Jackson, Tennessee, said Daniel Cowart, 20, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, were self-described white supremacists who met online through a mutual friend.
Both men have been charged with illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun, conspiracy to rob a federally licensed gun dealer and making threats against a presidential candidate.
Cowart and Schlesselman were arrested after an aborted robbery attempt last week, prosecutors said in a statement announcing the charges.
They made their initial appearances before a federal judge Monday and are scheduled for a bond hearing Thursday in Memphis. (CNN) -- Federal prosecutors in Tennessee have charged two men with plotting a... more
-
-
By Walter Pincus
Monday, October 27, 2008; Page A11
The status-of-forces agreement that would govern conduct of the U.S. military and its contractors in Iraq beyond 2008 would apparently tie the hands of the next U.S. president in some respects if it was ratified by the Iraqis before Jan. 20.
For example, the next president would have to wait a year if he wanted to pull out of the agreement altogether, according to Article 31, the final section. The current draft says that "cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided one year in advance," according to an English translation of the Arab version.
Even modification of the agreement's provisions would be difficult, requiring "written approval of both sides and . . . accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries." That means that if the new president wanted to change any provisions, he would have to get the approval of not only the Iraqi government but also its legislative body.
Neither Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nor Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) should worry, however. Chances are the Iraqis will not approve the deal. If they do, there probably would be no need for a President Obama to change it: He could order troop reductions before the deadlines without violating the agreement. And a President McCain, if he wanted, could consider the deal a Bush executive agreement that he could change with a stroke of his pen.
To date, the main public focus concerning the draft agreement has been U.S. troop withdrawal deadlines and immunity from local prosecution for American military and civilian government employees charged with crimes in Iraq. But there are many elements that favor U.S. interests.
For example, U.S. aircraft and civilian planes contracted by the United States would be authorized to fly in Iraqi airspace as well as refuel over and land in Iraq without paying taxes or landing fees. Anyone authorized by American officials to board U.S.-owned or contracted aircraft could not be stopped or searched. The same freedoms would apply to U.S. ships and ships contracted to the Defense Department during use of Iraqi ports.
The Iraqis are to provide at no cost special radio frequencies for U.S. forces who are permitted to operate their own wired and wireless communications. Once U.S. forces leave, the frequencies would be returned to the Iraqi government.
American armed forces and civilian employees could enter and exit Iraq using U.S.-issued ID cards and travel documents and could not be asked for anything else. Materials that U.S. forces and contractors brought in to Iraq or exported for use in training and services would not be "subject to search or to license requirements." Included would be equipment and materials for personal use and consumption. The United States would be required to establish regulations "to ensure no materials or articles of cultural or historical value are exported."
cont..belowBy Walter Pincus
Monday, October 27, 2008; Page A11
The status-of-forces agreement... more
-
-
A new map for Peak Oil Wars:
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, former Soviet Georgia, Africa and others.
The US empire is playing a "Good cop / bad cop" strategy where the neo-cons wrecked Iraq but the neo-liberals are in agreement that Iraq should be partitioned (which would allow the US greater control over the oil). If the bulk of the remaining oil was in places that were predominantly Buddhist or Hindu, the US would be waging a war on Buddhism or Hinduism.
The national borders of the Middle East countries were mostly drawn by British and French imperialist bureaucrats around 1920, not by citizens of these nations. These lines separate the bulk of the Arab peoples from the bulk of the oil wealth, a quasi-Apartheid situation deeply resented by millions of poor Arabs. The Arab world is roughly divided into countries with large populations and little oil, and countries with little populations and large amounts of oil (an oversimplification, but the general point is valid). But these configurations still allow for nationalist control over tremendous oil resources - which the US empire still resents.
The neo-cons call the current Middle East conflict "World War IV," since they consider the many wars under the umbrella of the Cold War to have been World War III. If you add up the number of bodies in the wars between 1945 and 9/11, the casualties are comparable to World War II.
Some of the neo-cons have publicly proclaimed that their goal for the War on Iraq (and eventually, its neighbors) is to redraw the borders of the Middle East. The ostensible reason given for this arrogance is to separate feuding ethnic and religious groups from each other. However, if you combine maps of the "new Middle East" sought by these armchair warriors with maps of the oil fields, a more sinister motive becomes obvious. Dividing up Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia would allow the consolidation of most of the region's oil into a new country (which presumably would be allied to the United States). This would remove control over the oil from governments based in Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh, allowing new arrangements of control to be established.
The supposed "failure" of the Bush Cheney invasion of Iraq allows for a new administration to supposedly fix the problems of their civil war by splitting Iraq into three new states - a Kurdish enclave in the north, a Shiite Arab state in the south, and a Sunni region in the center. Most of Iraq's oil would be concentrated in the Shiite region, with lesser amounts in the Kurdish part, and very little would remain for the Sunnis. This would allow the US to focus its occupation and manipulation on the parts of Iraq that have oil, and the parts without oil could be ignored.
September 5, 2002
The Guardian
The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil
Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region
a must read...cont.....A new map for Peak Oil Wars:
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, former... more
-
-
More than 1,000 years ago, Zoroastrians in Iran revered the perpetual flames that burned where natural gas vented from the earth. In the early 20th century, British prospectors discovered oil in Iran and in 1908 began the first large-scale drilling projects there. The government of Iran sold the exclusive right to explore and drill for oil in Iran -- a " concession" -- to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The British government bought a controlling stake in AIOC, and by the start of World War I, Iranian oil was Britain's most important strategic resource.
In time, Iranians grew to resent the AIOC. The terms of the concession were so unbalanced that British investors were rewarded handsomely while the government of Iran made very little profit. Foreign businessmen and engineers in Iran led extravagantly wealthy lifestyles that contrasted sharply with the poverty of the local population.
Frustration with foreign exploitation led to nationalization. The Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953, but in a coup engineered by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), this nationalist government was overthrown, and a government friendly to Western interests was installed under the control of theShah of Iran.
The continued economic and cultural influence of the West and the repressive nature of the Shah's regime led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Shah was overthrown and exiled, and the new Islamic Republic of Iran was established, led by theAyatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
American dependence on Middle Eastern oil
After World War II, Britain and France gave up control over much of the Middle East, as they could no longer afford to continue their imperialist strategies, either politically or economically. But a new world power, the United States, increased its presence in the region as American demands for oil were rapidly growing and outstripping domestic supply.
Standard Oil of California first discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in 1936. The huge deposits there and in the neighboring Persian Gulf countries -- the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain -- established these countries as some of the richest in the world.
Continuing American military power and domestic lifestyles depend on available access to Middle Eastern oil and reasonably low world petroleum prices. Thus, U.S. foreign policy initiatives work to support the stability of pro-U.S. governments, prevent anti-U.S. powers or blocs from forming, and reduce tension and potential armed conflict in the region.
Relations between the Saudi and U.S. governments have traditionally remained strong. Some Americans have questioned that relationship since the events of September 11, 2001, when Osama bin Laden and several other Saudis were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. At the same time, many Saudis mistrust their government's close relationship with the U.S. and resent other American policies in the region, such as U.S. support for Israel and the U.S.-led bombing of Iraq. The presence of armed U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia -- the birthplace of Islam -- is particularly galling to many Muslims.
Because the Middle East has the world's largest deposits of oil (55 percent of the world's reserves) in an easily extracted form, Middle Eastern oil continues to be necessary to the United States. American dependence on foreign oil has grown steadily over the years; currently about 55 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. This reliance on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable to unilateral political and economic acts by oil producing countries. For example, although the U.S. advocated economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War, 9 percent of the oil used by Americans after the war still came from Iraq, shipped through other countries.
More than 1,000 years ago, Zoroastrians in Iran revered the perpetual flames... more
-
