Monday, August 07, 2006

Juan Cole discusses Peak Oil and the Lebanon war: "I floated the fungibility [market access] of petroleum as a reason for which the Iraq War could not be only about oil".

And then in the very next paragraph Cole says:

"In a worst case scenario, Washington would like to retain the option of military action against Iran, so as to gain access to its resources and deny them to rivals."

This is self-contradictory. Its not about access, its about control. The US seeks a 'strategic veto' over other industrial powers. Japan and Europe will be obliged to align their policies with the US (if not become client states) if the US has 'control' over energy reserves.

This is the 'hegemonic' argument Chomsky has been making for years. I dont see why it should not be adopted or indeed regarded as other than obvious.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are the key regimes one wants as clients. Other regimes such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and even as far away as Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc are also strategically important in terms of geopolitical control.

The US obviously lusts to convert Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into client states. It has NOTHING to do with democracy (or WMDs, or 'terror'). These regimes represent an inherent threat to US hegemony. So does Iraq and if the US is forced to retreat from Iraq it would represent a stunning imperial defeat in the most crucial region of the world.

As for war (or empire for that matter) 'not making any sense', that is the nature of the beast. It is destructive, dangerous and can precipitate a catastrophe.

No comments: