The Israel lobby theory of Iraq war is looking better and better. Reuters, Saturday:
Critics said the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq said was driven by oil, but United States oil majors were largely absent from an Iraqi auction of oil deals snapped up instead by Russian, Chinese and other firms.
Here by the way is Steve Walt dispensing with Peter Beinart’s claim that Afghanistan demonstrates that the Israel lobby had no role in the Iraq disaster.
Stephen Walt has the better of the argument with Peter Beinart, who argues that the Israel Lobby was not important in the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
However, Beinart says more than he realizes when he ask: what about countries (like Afghanistan) that the US has invaded, in which Israel has no particular interest.
Beinart might have added: what about the history of US invasions of (say) Latin American countries, going back to 1898 or earlier. The Israel Lobby, and Israel, weren’t even in existence during many of these invasions.
Obviously, the power is the Israel Lobby is not the only explanation for a US invasion of a Third-World country.
My opinion: The Israel Lobby WAS a factor in the 1993 US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
But if the Lobby didn’t exist, probably the US would have done it anyway, because of the importance of controlling the oil of the Persian gulf.
The Iraq War was fought for oil and for the emotional “completion” of the otherwise embarrassing Bush 1 Gulf War job (embarrassing to GW).
The Reuter’s point is beside the point. That is that it was not fought for the trivial client advantage (US state as client for US-based major corporate oil interests) of the previous century.
The war was fought to facilitate the permanent flow of oil, rather than politically based threatened restrictions to the flow of oil driven by the ambiguities of the oil for food program.
There is no such thing anymore of an “American oil company”. All are entirely international entities with MORE foreign capital than domestic. Same with European oil companies. Who owns Exxon/Mobil? Dominant American families, dominant Arab families, dominant European families, millions of small international investors and funds trying to cash in.
And, the big companies make the majority of their income on trading futures and derivatives, NOT on the physical supply chain. The physical supply chain is a hedge and information source as much as a profit center itself.
Who would have thought that Reuters and Phil would be so twentieth-century in their analysis.
Although Dick Witty and Sarah Palin still
say the Iraq War was fought over oil, oil was not
in any case the key drummer.
Not Oil, but Israel:
link to thornwalker.com
W & M’s Israel Lobby debunks the War 4 Oil
theory (See especially Chapter 8)
And here’s a recent indicator of just how limited any such alleged oil prize is for the USA:
link to reuters.com
1,451 institutions hold 3,156,802,560 shares of XOM (Exxon’s ticker). That’s about half of its total shares outstanding. But out of this handful of institutions, you can be assured that approximately 4 million American’s hold shares of the Company’s stock, mostly in the form of their pension or 401(k) (the top three holders of the stock (Barclays, State Street, and Vanguard) are titanic mutual fund and index fund providers). What about the other half? Retail investors. Your neighbor, your friend, your co-worker. In fact, Exxon is one of the most widely held stocks, with a very high “ float” meaning “insiders” (company directors) own very little compared to their peers.
I forgot the reference url:
link to innonate.com
104 influential people connected to our media–you figure out what they have in common in terms of POV on anything touching Israel:
1. A.M. Rosenthal 2. Alan Dershowitz 3. Andrew Rosenthal 4. Ari Fleischer 5. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. 6. Barbara Amiel 7. Ben Stein 8. Benjamin Netanyahu 9. Bret Stephens 10. Bruce Kovner 11. Cal Thomas 12. Caroline Glick 13. Charles Krauthammer 14. Cheryl Halpern 15. Clifford May 16. Conrad Black 17. Dan Abrams 18. Dan Senor 19. Daniel Lapin 20. Daniel Pipes 21. Daniel Schorr 22. David Aaronovitch 23. David Brooks 24. David Frum 25. David Gelernter 26. David Horowitz 27. David Mamet 28. David Wurmser 29. Debbie Schlussel 30. Dennis Prager 31. Dennis Ross 32. Dick Morris 33. Dore Gold 34. Douglas Feith 35. Elie Wiesel 36. Elliott Abrams 37. Frank Gaffney 38. Fred Hiatt 39. Frederick Kagan 40. Haim Saban 41. James Woolsey 42. Jamie Kirchick 43. Jeff Jacoby 44. Jeffrey Goldberg 45. Joel Mowbray 46. John Bolton 47. John Hagee 48. John Podhoretz 49. Jonah Goldberg 50. Jonathan Tobin 51. Joseph Lieberman 52. Joshua Muravchik 53. Judith Miller 54. Ken Adelman 55. Kenneth Pollack 56. Lanny Davis 57. Lawrence Kaplan 58. Mark Levin 59. Mark Penn 60. Mark Steyn 61. Martin Indyk 62. Martin Peretz 63. Max Boot 64. Michael Barone 65. Michael Bloomberg 66. Michael Ledeen 67. Michael Makovsky 68. Michael Medved 69. Michael Rubin 70. Michael Savage 71. Michael Steinhardt 72. Mona Charen 73. Mort Kondracke 74. Mortimer Zuckerman 75. Norman Podhoretz 76. Oliver North 77. Pamela Geller 78. Pat Robertson 79. Paul Berman 80. Paul Wolfowitz 81. Peter Beinart 82. Rahm Emanuel 83. Reuel Marc Gerecht 84. Rich Lowry 85. Richard Cohen 86. Richard Holbrooke 87. Richard Perle 88. Robert Kagan 89. Robert Satloff 90. Roger Hertog 91. Roger Simon 92. Ron Rosenbaum 93. Rupert Murdoch 94. Sam Zell 95. Steve Roberts 96. Steven Emerson 97. Sumner Redstone 98. Suzanne Fields 99. Ted Koppel 100. Thomas Friedman 101. William Bennett 102. William Kristol 103. William Safire 104. Wolf Blitzer
Interesting list, citizen. Did you compile or get from another source?
Anyways, a good starting point. let’s add David Brooks to the list. Got a few more in mind, too.
OOps, just noticed he is on already – I guess it wasn’t alphabetic.
You’re right, of course, Richard.
‘And, the big companies make the majority of their income on trading futures and derivatives, NOT on the physical supply chain. The physical supply chain is a hedge and information source as much as a profit center itself.’
Ever since manufacturing and supply companies gave themselves over to bean-counters (and now banksters) the calculations have been based on a very primitve bottom line. An elementary accountant can do a lot to change that bottom line.
So you sit on him until he comes up with the goods, award yourselves huge bonuses, and give him $100.
Maybe.
This article regarding the results of the latest international bidding for Iraqi oil fields
says, inter alia, that American companies mostly didn’t bid, and when they did they had to absorb higher labor costs and a threat none of their competitors had to, that is, due
to our occupation of Iraq there’s a standing concern of attack by disgruntled natives:
link to wsws.org
Surely this would have been predictable by the oil companies back before Shrub invaded Iraq; hence it adds to why the oil companies did not lobby for such an attack (actually,
they lobbied for our government to drop the sanctions against Iraq).
The Iraq war conceived in Israel long before 9/11 and so did future war on Iran – as wrote professor Israel Shahak. Israel Lobby used Iraqi oil as a bait to lure American fools to die for Israeli plan for the future Muslim World.
Former US Secretary of States, Gen. Collin Powell told Washington Post editor, Karen DeYoung, that it was the JINSA crowed, in association with US Vice-president Dick Cheney – which not only controls the Pentagon but also pushed White House into Iraq War for the benefit of Israel. “JINSA is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish think tank that supported the Iraq war. Thomas Neumann, JINSA’s executive director, said he was not offended by Powell’s reference – but fears that Powell’s words could be used by anti-Semites in the future. Now, some Jewish groups fear public backlash after knowing this truth.
America’s “Fifth Column”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Thank you, Citizen, for posting some facts about the oil bidding. When an Angolan company can win more than than the big 5 (Seven Sisters? – lost track now), then it shows something.
Only Cheney and Bush thought the whole thing was about oil. Their ex-PNAC advisors at JINSA, etc, knew it was about Israel.
So ‘the two most powerful men in the world’ were completely misled by lobbyists from a shitty little Levantine country.
So the biggest American oil firms don’t even bid, because they know they will be driven out by outraged natives.
Greenspan thought so, too. Or rather, he said so.
Citizen – Had you asked for 104 names ,(you figure out what they have in common in terms of POV on anything touching Israel), then I might have come out with a count of about 30, but now I recognise them all.
You didn’t get this list from an ‘anti-semitic’ site, now did you?
just check out: link to jewwatch.com
The words of a Palestinian man come to me when I contrast the No War for Oil argument with the patronizing appearances of Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Gaffney, Pipes, May and others on all of the news channels leading up to the Shock and Awe blitzkrieg. Confronted with sadistic hasbara blaming him for the destruction of his own home, the Palestinian man said “You can destroy my home but you can’t make me crazy.” It was obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the Iraq war cheerleaders, or with a child’s understanding of body language, what their driving passion was. Speaking of Defending America only added insult to injury, and the rage and resentment left behind is deeper and will be more enduring as a result.
should be: Speaking of defending America or redefining it as a war for oil added insult to injury.
The War in Iraq was fought for world hegemony. The reason Iraq was a likely place for a war by the world’s sole superpower is because it sits on oil. If Iraq was sitting on no oil, no war would have taken place there. The world is not a chessboard with every space being of equal interest to those competing to control the board.
Whatever it was fought for WJ, it does not change the fact that the biggest cheer leaders for war on Iraq were either part of the Israeli Lobby or were well known neocons or both.
I don’t recall the oil lobby endorsing this war, but we all recall pro-Israeli pundits making a case for war on Iraq everyday for 2 years after 9/11 and for years before that during the Clinton era.
The Israeli lobby baked the cake for war, and the oil and weapons industry were merely icing on that cake.
The way I look at the issue is from a distance with a telescope. Oh look the humans are fighting another war. Where are they fighting this time? On land that has oil. Who is fighting this time? The world’s largest power and the winner of a war fought between two of the world’s largest oil producers (resources).
Before one looks at why as in the immediate cause, one should look at who and where.
It is no surprise that the largest power in the world went to war in the aftermath of sustaining the largest hit against its home territory ever since 1812. (Pearl Harbor was enough to start a war but was a half an ocean away.)
In recent times certain people are asking why should we go to war, whereas in fact the human impulse throughout much of history has been “why shouldn’t we go to war?”
there’s no question that the ideologues behind this war were neoconservatives. but they were neoconservatives who had been hired by the president. they didn’t sneak in there. the vice president hired them and he signed their manifesto. he was a neoconservative or had become one before signing their manifesto.
If it was hegemony it was a very Zionist conception of it. I think it had more to do with life support for the Pentagon and its growth industries in this unipolar moment where the U.S. has no real competitor in its self-selected arms race. There always needs to be a war happening (or on the horizon) to justify the outrageous “defense” budget and that’s where the Zionist media complex comes in, selling the War on Terror as a battle for the survival of Western civilization, ginning up stupid American public opinion for more war and covering the Pentagon’s flank when its ridiculous propaganda might backfire. In return for their services, the Zionists get unconditional aid and loan guarantees along with diplomatic cover from the increasingly discredited U.S. Both sets of elite benefit from direct investment in the military spending involved, the American economy avoids total collapse, and the advantages of apartheid on an imperialist island continue to translate into economic opportunity for a subset of Western citizens. The irony is that in terms of hegemony, the United States (as such, without its Zionist satellite) is losing influence every day because of the association, and the gain in military power is negligable since Israel has its military apparatus tied up in internecine scraps with their neighbors, none of whom are geopolitical forces to be reckoned with. The only legitimate hegemonic objective would be Iran, which the U.S. could probably co-opt with aid and kickbacks (like Saudi Arabia) if only it weren’t backing the brutal Zionist regime.
Let me add I would love to know what wondering jew, Phil Weiss, Jeffrey Blankfort, Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Goldberg, Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer, and the rest of the Mondoweiss readership think of this quid pro quo as I understand it.
What’s missing from the Israel Lobby book is an honest examination of the role that military spending plays in the American economy and Zionism’s effective support for continuing that status quo. Would there have been an Iraq war if the NY Times had blown the whistle on the neocons?
I think that the impulse to fight wars is stupid financially and the general European/American leftist view and realist view of the world doesn’t see much need to fight wars and I think Israel does need to fight wars and its necessity is the military industrial complex’s friend.
I think once Bush and Cheney decided to go to war, nothing short of the heavens opening up and God coming out against could have stopped them in the aftermath of 9/11.
the impulse to fight wars is stupid financially
What a simplistic statement, though. Stupid for whom. For the investors and former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney. Was Iraq stupid for him, financially? Was it stupid for the shareholders of General Dynamics, who experienced a 164 precent increase in returns from March ’03 to September ’06? Was it bad for the petroleum industry who despite not getting Iraq’s oil still benefitted handsomely from the price of a barrel reaching $100 in 2007? What about all the other investors in this mere handful of companies that together probably contribute trillions to the U.S. GDP?
I’m not even going to address “Israel does need to fight wars,” because that’s not a position any Zionist is going to relinquish, no matter how persuasive the argument that Zionist colonization itself constitutes warfare against the indigenous population of Palestine.
You said you wanted to hear my reaction to your comment.
“Zionist colonization itself constitutes warfare against the indigenous population of Palestine.” You are saying, perhaps, that Israel does not need to fight wars, because it doesn’t deserve to exist, for its mere existence is an act of war.
Israel needs to fight wars because it doesn’t deserve to exist. All Israel’s problems stem from its original sin of expelling the Palestinian people and confiscating their land, a sin which they continue to commit.
I was actually trying not to respond to your Zionist affirmation of the faith, but I failed and took the bait and now you are concentrating on that, which is predictable on your part. Well played, wj.
But the substance of my response (to your response) was concerning the odd notion that war is not a profitable activity for certain people/sectors. It certainly is, in the U.S. And in Israel too, I bet.
Were you just throwing around words like “hegemony” without even thinking of their implications in real terms of power, influence, and capital?
It is an illusion on the part of much of the Left that the US is in constant need of a war to justify its massive arms industry. Not so. Since there is no popular movement against arms spending there is generally no debate except over which particular item should have a priority, e.g., most recently, the F-22 fighter vs the F-35.
While the Zionist lobby and its media component are strong supporters of the arms industry, except when its sales are directed to the Saudis, that is not sufficient a reason for the unconditional support that Israel gets from Congress since, as I explained significant opposition to the arms budget is non-existent.
The War on Terror was, however, invented in Jerusalem about 1979, and has been useful providing a justification, albeit a fraudulent one, for maintaining the fiction that Israel was a strategic asset against Soviet penetration of the Middle East which dissipated with the end of the Cold War. The record shows that it has been viewed as largely a liability by most administrations that had to be coddled because it was and is backed by the political and economic power of the American Jewish establishment.
Hegemony that makes the world safe for Israel and wipes out its potential enemies.
Nope WJ, the US war against Iraq was the result of Israeli and their Israeli supporting neocons that gained power in the Bush administration pushing for that war. I needn’t have to make this case here. Go back and read M&W “Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, Chapter 8 and be sure not to overlook the footnotes beginning on p 428 especially not 20 to 40 or so. They could not discover evidence for oil companies pushing for that war, though they did find Israeli and Lobby fingerprints everywhere. In fact if you want to see how poorly US oil companies came out of that fiasco, just look at the companies that won the oil concessions that were just awarded last week.
I do believe that US oil companies are quite powerful in general but, if so, they must be really pissed off today how the Lobby undermined them in gaining these latest contracts. This really shows the power of the Lobby: they can totally screw US oil corporations without fear of reprisal. Or can they?
So if P didn’t happen, then A couldn’t have been done for the purpose of trying to bring about P? That’s not rational.
I had a big problem with Walt and Mearshimer when I heard them speak. They never actually constructed a valid argument for their thesis that the Israel lobby caused the Iraq war. The closest they came was arguing that the Israel lobby was really supportive of the war, IIRC.
Sorry Uri I don’t know what P and A refer to. As to your substantive question — why did the US invade Iraq? — then the answer is simple: no one really knows. But that does not mean that the Zionist lobby did not take advantage of the confusion to push their agenda. And that was very easy given that the neocons had completely infiltrated State, Defense and the Administration where they were positioned to push the Iraq war. And they did and they were successful.