Gulf Stability and the New Iraq
One way to think about U.S. policy toward the Persian Gulf since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War is that we’ve been struggling to create a situation in which Iraq is strong enough to avoid being dominated by Iran while not being strong enough to dominate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Basically, right now there are four oil rich countries all very close to each other and we want to make sure that they remain four separate countries so that none of them becomes too strong. The situation is one of enhanced concern because not only are these countries oil rich, but they share important cultural affinities that make successful domination seem more plausible. So when we feared that Iran was going to win the Iran-Iraq War, we backed Iraq. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we rushed to the defense of Saudi Arabia and pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. We then shifted to a policy of “dual-containment.” But by the end of the Clinton administration, officials such as Kenneth Pollack who’d been charged with implementing the policy became convinced that it was slowly unraveling and that we should take advantage of the political opportunity presented by 9/11 to mount an invasion of Iraq and resolve the issue. As of now, it remains fairly mysterious what exactly George W. Bush was thinking when he invaded Iraq, but this line of thought was evidently influential among Democratic supporters of the war (not just Pollack, but Hillary Clinton and most of the advisers she’s bringing with her to the State Department), so my best guess is that his administration was thinking roughly the same thing.
And whatever else you may say about the war in Iraq, based on my colleague Peter Juul’s informative take on Iraq’s recent weapons-buying spree we may have hit the sweet spot. Peter writes:
By the time these sales are complete (~2011), Iraq will on paper have an army quantitatively and qualitatively equivalent to those of its neighbors. Its 2,250+ U.S.-upgraded T-72 and M1A1M tanks will be quantitatively equal and qualitatively superior to the armor forces fielded by Iran. Its armor forces will be quantitatively superior to those of Saudi Arabia, while being qualitatively equivalent (if slightly smaller than those) of Turkey’s. The Iraqi Army’s biggest handicap in conventional warfare will be its lack of artillery.
By comparison, the Iraqi Air Force will be relatively small compared to those of its neighbors. Should the potential F-16 deal go through, Iraq will have just 36 modern combat aircraft – compared to 254 in Saudi Arabia and 243 in Turkey. Its air force will be comparable to those of smaller regional power such as Kuwait (39 modern fighters) or Bahrain (21 modern fighters). While Iraq will have a greater number of modern combat aircraft than Iran (36 to 25), Iran will have a greater number of obsolete aircraft.
That combination of strong land forces and a weak air force ought, it seems to me, to create the desired outcome. Such an Iraqi military can defend itself against Iran, but would have enormous difficulty mounting offensive operations. But one has to wonder how stable this dynamic is. For one thing, there continues to be a risk that Iraq’s central government will remain hopelessly divided and ineffectual, which would make the possession of tanks essentially useless in preventing Iranian political domination. Alternatively, the Iraqi government could pull itself together in which case it ought to be be able to build up its stockpile of modern aircraft in due time. And the underlying balance of power calculus that Kuwait has lots of oil, few people, and a government with little legitimacy will stay in place.
But even if the new balance stays in place, it’s worth reflecting on the enormous cost that our past 25-30 years worth of fiddling around with this has entailed. We’ve done it, more or less, to prevent any one country from securing monopoly power in the oil markets. That’s not a totally crazy objective. But truly vast sums have been invested in this goal—the approximately $1 trillion in Bush’s latest adventure is just a small part—sums that could, instead, have been spent on the goal of moving the US economy to a place where it’s less impacted by fluctuations in the oil market. For the costs we’ve been willing to incur in the Gulf, it would have been easy to substantially reduce the oil-intensity of our economy. That would have accomplished much the same economic goals, but also entailed significant advantages in terms of public health and the environment. To say nothing of the people killed or maimed by the bullets and explosives.
59 Responses to “Gulf Stability and the New Iraq”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I would add that the American attempt to prevent, by force or by machination, the political and diplomatic convergence of Arab states in a manner similar to say, the European Community, has caused immense ill will and compromised long-term Western security in the region.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Well, except for the one country who apparently set the terms of existence for all of the nations under discussion.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
What established economic interest would have lobbied for such policies?
January 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Let’s play Jeopardy!
Answer: A paper bag.
Question: What can’t even the best-equipped Arab military fight its way out of?
January 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
While Iraq will have a greater number of modern combat aircraft than Iran (36 to 25), Iran will have a greater number of obsolete aircraft.
History teaches that in a war between nations in this relative position, the number of obsolete aircraft that are operational very quickly becomes zero.
On the larger issue: Given that the Iranians and the Arabs (1) speak totally unrelated languages and (2) subscribe to antipathetic versions of Islam, is there any real likelihood that they will ever pursue a coordinated policy toward the West for any length of time? Just asking.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
For the costs we’ve been willing to incur in the Gulf, it would have been easy to substantially reduce the oil-intensity of our economy. That would have accomplished much the same economic goals, but also entailed significant advantages in terms of public health and the environment.
Some might say hindsight is 20/20.
Others (myself included) might say this was always very easy to see, but such a course would not have helped the “economic goals” of Exxon, Haliburton, et al.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Shouldn’t we consider the possibility of Iran and Iraq forming some type of alliance and using their combined militaries to become the dominant players in the region?
January 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
A few questions
1. How many of those deals were made when oil was around $140 a barrel not the current 40-50
2. I seriously doubt the US selling F-16 to Iraq by 2011. And if so, I doubt they would ever be trained well enough to fly them (similar to saudis and other arab states who buy fighter planes)
January 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hezbullah managed a halfway acceptable draw against Israel in 2006. Those high-end Russian RPGs are pretty nice pieces of technology.
I’m more interested in what exactly a US upgraded T-72 has under the hood. Also, I wonder exactly how many M1A1s we’re sending them. It’s a good enough machine that I’d be worried about a relatively small number of them being able to tip the balance.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
This argument would make sense if it truly were “our” economy – where everyone has the same say and shares the same benefits subject to the same risks.
To the extent that US Mideast policy has not been governed by such a common welfare but rather has been governed by the interests of some subset of the total population – or even of foreigners – then this is not true.
So the question arises, who has benefited?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
My understanding is that the Iranian supplied anti-tank missiles sliced through the Israeli main battle tanks like a hot knife through butter. The few that found there way into Iraq had the same effect against the M1A1’s as well. Cheap, disposable, asymmetrical weaponry seems to be a game-changer.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Hezbollah, the exception that proves the rule.
Do you read the War Nerd? Or Bill Lind? Or Billmon before he stopped posting? Because they’d all heartily agree.
Frankly, any would-be insurgent or Third World military with a Swiss bank account and a Russian contact ought to be buying up as many RPGs (from the venerable 7 up to the most advanced 29) and SAMs (recall that Soviet doctrine always assumed NATO air forces would have superiority, so they mass produced nasty little fuckers to splash our guys) as you can fill up freighters.
That, along with motivation, training, and from that training, patience, is why Hezbollah could hold its own.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Not to quibble with your generally accurate presentation, but keep in mind that the U.S. is a small part of the global economy, so even if we changed our gluttonous energy ways, a prospective Middle Eastern oil monopoly presents great problems for the rest of the world. A real solution to the problem has to involve a cooperative policy among a number of countries – the industrialized West including Japan, India and China, at least – to persuade Middle Eastern governments to play nice. Obviously a trivial task for so wise a world leader as the U.S. ….
January 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
There already exists weaponry that can be launched from a f*cking speedboat that can scuttle an aircraft carrier. The last place I would want to be is on a US vessel in the Persian Gulf after an air-strike against the Iranian nuclear sites. As the submariners say, “There are two kinds of vessels in the navy: submarines and targets.” And air forces are little better off. Soon there will be no such thing as “close ground support”. Anything below 2500 feet will be knocked out of the sky by some cheap shoulder-fired firecracker a child could operate.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
This is not quite accurate. While there is certainly antipathy between Iranians and Arabs, the majority of Iraqis are Shiite, not Sunni. In addition, while Syria is majority Sunni, their power stucture is controlled by Shia (despite Assad being an Allawite).
I believe the current paranoia is that Iran is improving relations with Iraq and they will work together – Iraq and Syria (and Hezbollah) giving Iran “Arab Street Cred”. This Shiite power bloc will then exercise influence over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing Iran to control the price of oil. The monarchies would be crippled by their own Sunni extremists precluding assistance from the US. There would be no invasion, just an implied threat that would not be worth it for the monarchies to ignore.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Amen to that.
Slightly off topic, but Admiral Rickover’s comment to the Armed Services Committee brilliantly illuminates your post:
When asked how long the state-of-the-art US nuclear navy with its carriers and their long, long list of escorts would last against the Soviets, he said “about two days.”
January 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You could get everyone in the US a pony for much less than the annual defense budget, but you’d need to triple the pre-war budget to cover the feeding and stabling costs. At the current DoD spending rate, if we got a good bulk deal on hay, and negotiated collectively on stabling, we could indeed get everybody their own pony.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The Iraqis could provide the bridge between the Iranians and the Arabs making for a much more cohesive Persian Gulf allied against the west and Israel. Many options as to what happens next with Iraq keeping Iran restrained not likely to be one.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You think it’d take them two days to retarget an ICBM to hit a task force?
January 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Re Jim in Austin
My understanding is that the Iranian supplied anti-tank missiles sliced through the Israeli main battle tanks like a hot knife through butter.
Mr. Jims’ understanding is seriously in error. After the 2006 war, the Jerusalem Post did a study of the effect of the ground launched anti-tank missiles used by Hizbollah. The results, as I recall were as follows. Hizbollah fighters launched several hundred such missiles of which about 50 actually hit a target. Of those 50, some 19 caused enough damage to injure or kill members of the crew. Further, none of the 19 tanks that were seriously damaged were Merkava IV tanks, the most modern in the IDF and at least as damage resistant as the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Your source could be the problem. The Israelis have sashayed in and out of southern Lebanon at will for decades. Why would they suddenly throw up their hands and flee to the south? Why? Because like every military in the Middle East they rely primarily on armor. If their armor doesn’t roll, they don’t roll. The Israelis are used to near zero losses and Hezbollah had significant success against them. Success to the degree that the Israelis withdrew. You will also note that Israeli armor has remained disengaged in Gaza, withdrawn to a defensive position. Why? Because they fear that Hamas may have been supplied with the same weaponry as Hezbollah.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Re Jim in Austin
Just for Mr. Jims’ information, most of the damage inflicted on Israeli armor in Lebanon was due to mines and roadside bombs. All tanks are vulnerable to mines because, just like battleships, they can’t be protected everywhere equally. The Merkava IV and Abrams M1A1 weigh some 70 tons. If they were equally protected everywhere, they would weigh three times that and would be little more then mobile artillery. As an aside, battleship armor used by dreadnaught and super dreadnaught battleships is referred to as all or nothing protection. It is designed to protect the vital parts of the ship from incoming shells (e.g. the main turrets and the engine room). A ship with equally thick armor everywhere wouldn’t float.
Israeli armor is being delayed in deployment so that mine sweeping operations can be undertaken. After the area is swept for mines, they can roll in and do their job.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“So the question arises, who has benefited?”
Exxon-Mobil. That’s a point that Matt misses discussing oil issues. Our goal in preventing an oil monopoly in the Middle East is not to benefit the consumer or to improve our defense position, it’s to maintain the relevance of our oil companies. They give a lot of money to our politicians, and they want a good return on those investments. A credible monopoly in the Middle East could play the same games Standard Oil did before it was broken up. Our oil companies wouldn’t stand a chance against that.
“If their armor doesn’t roll, they don’t roll.”
So does their armor roll on Shabbos? Sorry, I just watched The Big Lebowsky again and couldn’t resist.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
SLC: Post as much IDF propaganda as you wish but the fact remains that the Israelis fled southern Lebanon due to unsustainable losses. And those losses were primarily inflicted by Czech designed anti-tank missiles supplied by Iran. And the current conflict in Gaza began almost 3 weeks ago. Just how long does it take to clear anti-tank mines? And you will note there was no delay for clearing anti-tank ordinance in southern Lebanon. The game has changed…
January 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Stupidest post yet.
Amazingly delusional. I can just see the same post being written in AD 300 about dividing the Ostrogoths, Visigoths and Vandals. How’d that work out, anyway?
January 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Until relatively recently, like say the mid 80s, I don’t think you could pull that off. Isn’t that why both sides designed things like the Tomahawk(which was initially supposed to be a nuclear tipped missle) that could be ship-launched?
Even in the 70s, the Soviet sub fleet could have pulled it off in a few days. Now, our own subs probably could have turned around and sunk them, but I doubt that’s consolation for flyboys sinking 10,000 ft under the North Atlantic.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Further, none of the 19 tanks that were seriously damaged were Merkava IV tanks, the most modern in the IDF and at least as damage resistant as the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank.
SLC, buddy, the great majority of the IDF’s fleet isn’t Mark 4. I think they even have some M60s from way back when.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Within a short period of time, perhaps less than a decade, the Israelis will no longer be able to successfully invade anyone. And no one will be able to successfully be able to invade them as well. This will be a good thing. Then, finally, there will be a basis for a mutual peace.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Merkava IV tanks, the most modern in the IDF and at least as damage resistant as the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank.”
Not remotely close to being accurate. Relatively simple, 15+ year old, light weapons have taken out the Merkava IV, while you need a relatively sophisticated “top-attack” scheme to inflict lethal damage to an M1 with anything “manportable”. I don’t think there are any shoulder launched systems that can actually destroy one – maybe multiple attacks from a LAW-MBT in top attack mode.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
The question then is how many of the 50 tanks hit were Merkava IV? Additionally, from what I’ve read the Merkavas were designed with crew survivability in mind (if the ammo goes, it blows out the top of the vehicle deck instead of into the crew compartment, etc), so the fact that that 19 tanks lost crew could be considered a good thing. I’d also like to know how many tanks were disabled without casualties on the part of the crew.
The RPG-29s are cheap (especially when compared to a MBT) and with the ability to fire either a thermobaric or HEAT warhead, they are probably quite popular.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
ATGM’s are a defensive weapon. I don’t think Hezbo or anyone else is going to load up with ATGM’s and take any piece of terrain.
The Israelis suffered so many tank losses because they restricted the firing of their artillery for fear of civilian casualties. I know many of the readers of the page think the Israelis are the new Nazis but they actually took steps to reduce civilian casualties that actually cost them losses. The combined arms team of tanks, artillery and infantry can overcome ATGMs.
Arabs are pathetic combatants in organized, stand-up warfare. I doubt the Iranians would do much better but I wouldn’t try a “thunder run” through downtown Tehran. Arabs y all hate each other and have no esprit when you get more than a hand full together with the exception of a few elite forces. Something in their culture does not allow them to do well when working together against a modern enemy. I know a lot of people that say that Arabs are cogent people when you deal with them one on one. Two or more in a room descends into chaos.
I read somewhere that our gas actually costs $15 – $18/gallon if you factor in defense expenditures in the ME.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Okay, let me explain things in retarded baby talk.
Iraq used to be a counterweight against Iran. But to be a counterweight, Iraq had to be actually functioning as a rival state.
Iraq is 24 million people, Iran is 70 million. Iran is mountain/hill country. Iraq is a nice fertile flat flood plain ‘invasion highway.’ Do your own math.
Kuwait is a feudal joke state created by the British with a population of a few million people and no fresh water.
Saudi Arabia is a corrupt monarchy that would be a kleptocracy, except for the fact that practically is everyone in in it. Thirty million people, I think.
Now, let’s take a look at Iran and Iraq. Pretty mismatched, wouldn’t you say? Yep. The Iran/Iraq war took place not because Iran was strong, but because it was weak. Saddam Hussein took a look at the relentless purging of the Iranian military and society by the fundamentalists, figured that they’d be military pushovers and that the whole place would fall like a house of cards.
Within two years he discovered how wrong he was. He spent the next six years fighting for his life. The weight of numbers in terms of population, and the weight of geography was against him. But he managed to get out with his skin.
Well, today’s Iraq is not Saddam Hussein’s wartime Iraq. It’s not even Saddam Hussein’s sanctions Iraq. Six years of American occupation have seen a million extra fatalities, four million refugees, the virtual independence of the Kurds, and pretty much wholesale infrastructural and economic collapse. The Iraqi’s are going to be generations rebuilding their country.
Now, the other thing is if you look at the politics: Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were secular, sunni arabs. Who runs Iraq now… The 65% majority Shia arab population, which dramatically outnumbers the 18% Sunni arabs, and the 17% Kurds.
Who do the 65% majority Shia vote for? Well, let’s just say they don’t vote for anyone we like. They vote for Sadr, who is anti-Iranian but also anti-US, and who kicks America’s ass every time we tumble with him.
And they vote for SCIRI and Dawa. Who are the SCIRI and Dawa parties? Well… look em up on the Wikipedia. But let’s just say that they were Iranian created, Iranian funded and Iranian run Shiite theocratic parties created by the Iranian revolutionary regime to be the arab alternative to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during the war. SCIRI and Dawa are the guys we support and they’re also the guys who are running Iraq.
Now, because of tensions between Sadr’s bunch, and the Iranian catspaws, the SCIRI/Dawa bunch need the Kurds to form a coalition government. No one cares about the Sunni. At this point, it’s probably as good as it’ll ever get for American interests.
But here’s the thing: Right now in Iraq, Americans and America is as popular as a group of syphilitic dogs. That’s why all of our collaborator stooges are clamouring to get out. Once we leave the favourite national sport is going to be making these guys eat their severed body parts, starting with their dicks.
So, who are the Shiite Theocrat Government of Iraq going to turn to to help rebuild and stabilize their shattered country?
Oh my, if only, if only, if only there was some neighboring country full of Shiite Theocrats who they had a friendly past relationship with, and a large common border and common interests.
The future of the region, my dear idiots, comes in two possible shapes.
One is an Iraq/Iran Economic and Political Alliance, which may turn out to be a lot like the Franco-German alliance. Two major oil producers, a hundred million people, semi-industrialized, sitting between Indian, Central Asia, Europe and the middle east. Throw in Syria which really doesn’t have any other good options, and is also run by Shiites. Lebanon, dominated by Shiite Hezbollah, and you have a Shiite axis to basically reign over the middle east. The rest of the Persian gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have either large Shiite minorities or actual Shiite majorities. The Saudi Shiites are only 10% but they dominate the oil producing region. Essentially, an Iran/Iraq Axis will realign the whole region around itself.
Alternately, we may see Iraq effectively broken up, with an independent Kurdistan to piss off the Turks. An oil-less, failing, landlocked Arab Sunni state which will be a perfect breeding ground for Al Quaeda. And a rump Shiite state with oil wealth which will be an Iranian satellite. In this scenario, a solo Iran is not nearly as powerful as an Iran/Iraq Axis, but it still gets to dominate the Persian Gulf.
That’s what you get when you let morons run your country.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Oh, but by all means, keep on blithering.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Here’s the bottom line: Israel’s adventures in Lebanon are at an end. And some time within the near future their adventures in the territories of their other neighbors will also be at an end. Technology will see to that. Then their only recourse will be peace. When they can no longer invade as a solution then a Middle East peace may become a reality.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Israel is going to be irrelevant. Sorry to break it to ya, but what’s going on has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with economics and demographics. The middle east is being realigned.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Matt says:
“One way to think about U.S. policy toward the Persian Gulf since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War is that we’ve been struggling to create a situation in which Iraq is strong enough to avoid being dominated by Iran while not being strong enough to dominate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.”
Well, it goes back further, at least through the Carter Doctrine, which was also intended to keep the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf.
Overall, the policy worked fairly well for us, especially because it was more than fair to the Gulf States. They got to keep their oil and sell it over seas made safe by the U.S. Navy, and they even got to try to cartelize their industry when they could peaceably agree with each other to restrain trade. The only thing they couldn’t do was try to conquer each other.
The mistake was in 2003 when the policy was working fine — Saddam was no threat to anybody, but he was still deterring Iran — we decided to blow it up just to hear the bang, or whatever our motive was to fix something that wasn’t broken.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Skeptic gullibly asserts:
“Israel is going to be irrelevant. Sorry to break it to ya, but what’s going on has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with economics and demographics. The middle east is being realigned.”
I dunno. So far, betting on 5 million Jews versus 500 million Muslims has been a winning proposition.
Consider Egypt, which has seemingly splendid demographics. Its population has grown from 3 million or so when Napoleon arrived to 80 million today. Has that made it a regional superpower?
Nah. It doesn’t want to have anything to do with tangling with Israel anymore.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
SLC: “most of the damage inflicted on Israeli armor in Lebanon was due to mines and roadside bombs.”
No, most of it was due to well-deployed antitank missiles.
I remember reading an eyewitness account. Some Israeli Merkavas entered a valley in southern Lebanon. Within minutes, Pop! Pop! A couple antitank missiles pop out of the forested hillside somewhere. Scratch one Merkava.
Try to find those guys in the tunnels who fired those antitank missiles? Good luck! And if you did, you kill a couple Hizballah members who will be replaced next week. Meanwhile, you’ve lost a tank until it can be hauled back and repaired. While Iran buys a thousand more antitank missiles from Russia and ships them to Hizballah for the next round.
Israel cannot win that game. No military can. Antitank missiles – and persons willing to fire them – cost less than tanks. It’s that simple.
4th Gen War changes the dynamics. However, 4th Gen War – so far – has only been fought inside the countries of those pursuing it. Once somebody figures out how to conduct it inside the country of its enemies, Israel is doomed.
And it’s not impossible to do that. But there’s no way Hizballah Shia can roam around inside Israel. They’re going to have to learn how to use infiltrators who aren’t Shia Arabs and hired mercs and suborned Israeli Arabs to do that. And perhaps different technology.
Sooner or later the nation states will do down because it’s not possible to keep everybody happy in a country ruled by one side – and with advancing technology, sooner or later anybody who isn’t happy is going to have a target and the means to hit that target.
Power politics inevitably must lead to the death of power politics.
Of course, that will take decades – and by that time, somebody else may decide to take a hand and eliminate the problem altogether.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Hey Moron, you don’t get it do you. No one cares. You figure that this is like the comic books and the Israel Revenge League sits around dressed up like supervillains in their Island Hideout in a mountain shaped like Dr. Evil’s Head arguing about who should take the minutes?
Israel exists, Israel doesn’t exist, the Persian Gulf don’t care. They care about the money and they care about the oil. Japan don’t care if its oil comes from an Israel friendly country or an Israel hating country, so long as its oil.
Iraq wasn’t a threat to Israel. That’s not why we invaded it. Iran isn’t a threat to Israel. Sure, it’s popular to rail against it for the crowds. But the comic book stuff? Ain’t happening.
The game has moved on. It’s elsewhere. The side show is just a side show.
I mean Cripes, how much oil does Israel have? Sweet F*** all.
What’s the total volume of Israel’s trade with Arab economies? More Sweet F*** all.
An Iran/Iraq Axis is as significant to the region as a Franco/German Alliance is to Europe, an Argentine/Brazil alliance is to South America, and a China/Japan axis is to East Asia. Economics does the rest.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
There is something inherently wrong with considering mid-eastern oil to be an American military concern and to considering alliances in the Mideast to be inherently threatening to us.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Ah, wait, I got sidetracked from what I was originally going to post here.
Matt’s notion that it was smart to try to keep all the oil countries separate is both stupid and egregious.
First of all, it’s none of our business how other countries conduct their foreign relations as long as it doesn’t entail attacking this country.
Second, whether or not one “super-country” or alliance sets the price of oil is irrelevant to us if 1) we’re focused on reducing our oil dependence, which we should be anyway working on new energy sources, and 2) said group still has to sell somebody the oil, at whatever price.
OPEC has never been about bankrupting the world for oil. It’s about maximizing its income without causing the price to go so high that the world abandons oil as a major energy source.
So the whole concept of interfering in the Middle East in order to prevent one group from “monopolizing” the oil is bogus.
Not to mention that OPEC has a lot of trouble BEING a “monopoly” just like all monopolies do. That’s because there’s a huge incentive for a member of the monopoly to break the monopoly and reap its own “monopoly” profits by everyone buying from them at a lower price.
Historically, monopolies cannot last without major coercive interventions by the state.
This is why Greg Palast is right when he establishes that the reason Iraq was invaded was precisely BECAUSE Saddam did not always adhere to the OPEC oil price guidelines. He also establishes that when the neocons thought invading Iraq would lead to cheap oil for America, the oil companies were brought in to dissuade Bush of that notion. Which is why the regulations imposed on Iraq by Bush specifically state that Iraq’s Oil Ministry will at all times adhere to the OPEC price guidelines.
The REAL purpose of selling Iraq all this military hardware is the same (additional) reason the US went to war in the first place: SOMEBODY GETS PAID FOR THAT STUFF! It’s all about the MONEY!
Matt still doesn’t get it. He thinks all this front, cover story stuff about foreign policy is real. It’s not. It’s about the MONEY and the POWER. Get it through your head, Matt, or we’ll be forced to treat you like an ignorant kid for the rest of your life.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Whatever the purpose or agenda of Bush’s blunderings, it is very clear that the resulting outcomes will not be in America’s interests.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Yeah. They’re about $500-$600.
The big costs are in stabling fees. Real defense spending is running a bit over a trillion a year right now, considering off budget items. That’s about $3500 per American. That would only pay for about half the maintenance costs of our pony horde, but I figure, after an initial surge due to scarcity, the costs would go down once we took advantage of volume.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:46 am
dsfsdfdfsdfsdfsdf
ddddss
ddd
ddd
February 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hi, cool site, good writing
March 11th, 2009 at 4:11 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:54 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Incredible site! viagra