Oil, Sharon and the Axis of Evil
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Oil, Sharon and the Axis of Evil
topic by
nemesis
2/12/2002 (9:47)
 reply top
Oil, Sharon and the Axis of Evil
The Great Game
By Uri Avnery

Some weeks ago, something curious happened: Israel discovered that Iran is the Great Satan.

It happened quite suddenly. There was no prior sensational news, no new discovery. As if by the order of a drill-sergeant, the whole Israeli phalanx changed direction. All the politicians, all the generals, all the enlisted media, with the usual complement of professors-for-hire, - all of them discovered overnight that Iran is the immediate, real and terrible danger.

By wondrous coincidence, at exactly the same moment a ship was captured that, allegedly, carried Iranian arms to Arafat. And in Washington Shimon Peres, a man for all seasons and the servant of all masters, accosted every passing diplomat and told him stories about thousands of Iranian missiles that have been given to the Hizbullah. Yes, yes, Hizbullah (included by President Bush in the list of 'terrorist organizations') is receiving horrible arms from Iran (included by President Bush in the 'Axis of Evil') in order to threaten Israel, the darling of the Congress.

Does this sound mad? Not at all. There is method in this madness.

On the face of it, the matter is easy to explain. America is still in a state of fury after the Twin-Towers outrage. It has won a amazing victory in Afghanistan, hardly sacrificing a single American soldier. Now it stands, furious and drunk with victory, and does not know who to attack next. Iraq? North Korea? Somalia? The Sudan?

President Bush cannot stop now, because such an immense concentration of might cannot be laid off. The more so, as Bin-Laden has not been killed. The economic situation has deteriorated, a giant scandal (Enron) is rocki ng Washington. The American public should not be left to ponder on this.

So here comes the Israeli leadership and shouts from the roof-tops: Iran is the enemy! Iran must be attacked!

Who has made that decision? When? How? And most importantly - Where? Clearly not in Jerusalem, but in Washington DC. An important component of the US administration has given Israel a sign: Start a massive political offensive in order to pressure the Congress, the media and American public opinion.

Who are these people? And what is their interest? A wider explanation is needed.

The most coveted resource on earth is the giant oil-field in the Caspian Sea region, that competes in scale with the riches of Saudi Arabia. In 2010 it is expected to yield 3.2 billion barrels of crude oil per day, in addition to 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

The United States is determined (a) to take possession of it, (b) to eliminate all potential competitors, (c) to safeguard the area politically and militarily, and (d) to clear a way from the oil-fields to the open sea.

This campaign is being led by a group of oil people, to which the Bush family belongs. Together with the arms industry, this group got both George Bush senior and George Bush junior elected. The President is a simple person, his mental world is shallow and his pronouncements are primitive, bordering on caricature, like a second-rate Western. That is good for the masses. But his handlers are very sophisticated people indeed. It's they who guide the administration.

The Twin Towers outrage made their job much easier. Osama Bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests. If I were a believer in Conspiracy Theory, I would think that Bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one, I can only wonder at the coincidence.

Bush's 'War on Terrorism' constitutes a perfect pretext for the campaign planned by his handlers. Under the cover of this war, America has taken total control over the three small Muslim nations near the oil reserves: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The whole region is now completely under American political-military domination. All potential competitors - including Russia and China - have been pushed out.

For a long time, the Americans have been arguing among themselves about the best route for piping this oil to the open sea. Routes that may be under Russian influence have been eliminated. The 19th century, deadly British-Russian competition, then called the 'Great Game', is still going on between America and Russia.

Until recently, the western route, leading to the Black Sea and Turkey, seemed most feasible, but the Americans did not like it very much, to say the least. Russia is much too near.

The best route leads south, to the Indian Ocean. Iran was not even considered, since it is governed by Islamic fanatics. So there remained the alternative route: from the Caspian Sea, through Afghanistan and the western part of Pakistan (called Beluchistan), to the Indian Ocean. To this end, the Americans conducted, ever so quietly, negotiations with the Taliban regime. They bore no fruit. Then the 'War on Terrorism' was started, the US conquered all of Afghanistan and installed their agents as the new government. The Pakistani dictator, too, was bent to the American will.

If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.

That would have been the end of the story, but the appetite grows with the eating. The Americans drew two lessons from the Afghani experience: (a) that every country can be subdued by sophisticated bombs, without putting any soldiers in harm's way, and (b) that by military might and money America can install client governments anywhere.

And so a new idea came up in Washington: Why lay a long pipeline around Iran (through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan) if one can lay a much shorter pipeline through Iran itself? One has only to topple the Ayatullah regime and install a new pro-American government. In the past, that seemed impossible. Now, after the Afghani episode, it looks eminently practicable. One has only to prepare American public opinion and to acquire the support of the congress for an attack on Iran.

For this, Israel's good services are needed. It has an enormous influence in the Congress and the media. It works like this: Israeli generals declare every day that Iran is producing weapons of mass-destruction and threatens the Jewish State with a second Holocaust. Sharon announces that the capture of the Iranian arms-ship proves Arafat is a part of the Iranian conspiracy. Peres tells everybody that Iranian missiles threaten the whole world. Every day some newspaper tells its readers that Bin Laden is in Iran or with the Hizbullah in Lebanon.

President Bush knows how to reward those who serve him well. Sharon got a free hand to oppress the Palestinians, imprison Arafat, assassinate militants and enlarge the settlements. It's a simple deal: You deliver the support of the Congress and the media, I deliver the Palestinians on a platter.

This could not happen if America was still in need of allies in Europe and the Arab world. But in Afghanistan, the Americans learned that they don't need anybody anymore. They can spit in the eyes of the pitiful Arab regimes, that are always begging for money, and disregard Europe altogether. Who needs the negligible armies of Britain and Germany, when America alone is mightier then all the armies of the world combined?

The idea of American-Israeli cooperation against Iran is not new for Sharon. On the contrary, in 1981, when he was just appointed Minister of Defense, he offered the Pentagon a daring plan: in the event of Khomeini's demise, the Israeli army would immediately occupy Iran, in order to forestall the Soviet Union. The IDF would turn the country over to the slow-moving Americans, once they arrived. For this purpose, the Pentagon would stockpile in advance the most sophisticated arms in Israel, under American control, to be used in this operation.

The Pentagon did not accept the idea at that time. Now, the cooperation is being established against a different background.

What conclusions should we draw from all this?

First of all, that we shall be located on the frontline of this coming war. Beyond the exchange of curses between the 'two Persian Chiefs-of-Staff' (as the joke goes in Israeli command circles, alluding to the fact that Shaul Mofaz was born in Iran), an Iranian reaction to an American assault may hurt us grievously. There are missiles. There are chemical and biological weapons.

Second, that those of us who desire an Israeli-Palestinian peace cannot rely on America. Now everything depends on us alone, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our blood is more precious than Caspian Sea oil. At least to us.

Uri Avnery lives in Israel. He has written extensively about the life and career of Ariel Sharon.

reply by
Ron
2/12/2002 (16:31)
 reply top
I wish, I wish, I wish everyone would look to the example of Gandhi. His method of fighting is perfect for taking on an aggressor who is overwhelmingly more powerful than you.

Everyone has this stupid thing built into their thinking that Passive Resistance doesn't work, yet, there is an independent India today because of it. Truth is that which is.

It is really hard to subdue a people who simply will not cooperate with you. Just ask the British. Also, I guarantee, that if American soldiers started killing people because they refused to do what they're told, that the American people would begin to awaken from the little dream world they live in, where their government is this selfless benevolent organisation that cares only for the safety of innocent civilians.

But to achieve that, the Adversary must be driven from among the people. The concept of hating someone who does not share in your world view must be put to death. This requires a commitment on the part of each individual.

I know Americans do not currently have the mental capacity nor the conviction of heart to see the logic of this, but I wonder if the Arab 'world' might not see that such a course of action is probably the only chance they have left from becoming the middle eastern equivalent of Central and South America.

If those quarellsome children would stop arguing amongst themselves, and collectively refuse to sell oil to us or to cooperate with us until their sovereignty is fully recognized, they could bring America to it's knees.

But it would cost lives, but then, not doing it has already cost lives. The American leadership, as well as the Zionists would crap their pants if that ever occured.

'The stone that the builders refused, shall be the head cornerstone.'
reply by
Barb
2/13/2002 (2:20)
 reply top
Ghandi was assasinated, too, remember? The independent India of today is at the verge of war with Pakistan! There are millions of starving people there, children who are enslaved to work in factories, and living conditions for the majority would not be considered acceptable to the Western world.
reply by
nemesis
2/13/2002 (10:16)
 reply top
Yes, Gandhi was indeed assisinated. But, so was Jesus!

Also, are you saying India would have been better off if left to the whim of the occupiers? If I have misunderstood you, can you please elaborate your thoughts a bit?
reply by
Barb
2/13/2002 (15:08)
 reply top
My point is that Ghandi, although a great man, was not successful in the end.

On another topic, I would be glad if the mideast would refuse to sell their oil to us. It would force this country to look at alternative fuel sources so we stop polluting the US so much with all these SUV gas hogs. We only get 25% of our oil (which is probably still a lot of barrels) from the mideast; the rest coming from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, and Alaska.
reply by
Guru
2/13/2002 (20:05)
 reply top
It looks like you're learning something! It was about time!
reply by
Barb
2/13/2002 (20:11)
 reply top
See, Raquel? Insults again directed toward ME. Why don't you speak up now?
reply by
Ron
2/13/2002 (21:36)
 reply top
'My point is that Ghandi, although a great man, was not successful in the end.'

I respectfully disagree. His goal was an independent India through peaceful means and he lived to see that goal realized. Although, he felt he failed because of the split between them and Pakistan. It is true that his people today do not practice what he taught, but then, Americans are a far cry from the people the founding fathers were, were they unsuccessful? I suppose you could say they failed as well, depending on how you look at it.

I like the point about Jesus being asasinated. Died though he did, and though todays church is more of a prostitute than the bride of Christ, still his identity was in the Truth and when push came to shove, the world could not make him accuse, attack, nor condemn, but all they got from him even while he was on the cross was:
'Father forgive them, they know not what they do.' The adversary had no hold on him.

They could kill his body, but they could not make him come out of the StrongCity of the Truth. Neither could they with Gandhi.
reply by
Ron
2/13/2002 (23:25)
 reply top
'See, Raquel? Insults again directed toward ME. Why don't you speak up now?'

It is unfortunate that people must stoop to insults. But I would encourage you to recieve them like you would a complement. People who hurl insults lose their power over you when you gladly accept them. Or rather, when we choose to take offense at insults, that is when we give them power over us. Just ask our dear Brother Scot how much power he thinks his insults hold over me. :)
reply by
Barb
2/14/2002 (12:21)
 reply top
It is an interesting comparison, Jesus and Ghandi, but OK, let's go with it. By Ghandi's standards, he did not achieve what he wished. He did have some successes in India, but look at the fighting within the borders. By Jesus's standards, he did succeed, as he was crucified to save man. Done deal. However, there is still much evil throughout the world and the U.S... India is not a peaceful country however as the U.S. is from an internal standpoint, Ron.
reply by
Ron
2/14/2002 (24:38)
 reply top
Barb,

'It is an interesting comparison, Jesus and Ghandi, but OK, let's go with it. By Ghandi's standards, he did not achieve what he wished. He did have some successes in India, but look at the fighting within the borders.'

'some successes'? Can you name me one nation on earth that has ever driven an occupying military force off of it's soil through peaceful means? I'm not a history expert, but what I do know indicates to me that India is the only one to have ever done it(if someone knows otherwise, I would welcome the info).

I'm not sure you quite understand the history of the British Empire making statements like this. They weren't known for their willingness to throw in the towel and just choose to stop ruling others. Just ask the Irish.

His success was proving that all those who say war, violence, and bloodshed are the only answers to war violence and bloodshed, were liars. HE COMPLETELY SUCCEEDED IN THAT.

If that's failure, then by the Most High, let me be a failure in life.

'By Jesus's standards, he did succeed, as he was crucified to save man.'

That is True, but it is True because by his crucifixtion, he demonstrated the Way to Salvation. That when those who have chosen to be your adversary are hammering your hands and feet into the cross(waging war, using violence, and shedding your blood), you pray 'Father forgive them, they know not what they do.' Only by this, can your heart be delivered from the darkness that possess men to crucify. Only by this can you escape the curse of hating those who wrong you. In this doctrine, one discovers the power of the Living God.

His example greatly inspired Gandhi, and Gandhi, taking the command 'Turn the other cheek' literally, took on the worlds SuperPower of his day with the principle behind that command, and won. I simply can not accept that this is failure. If you wish to believe that, so be it, but I will not, ever. I'd just like to point out that Einstein felt he had failed at some things, does that make his great achievements failures? Would you dare say that Einstein had 'some successes?'


'However, there is still much evil throughout the world and the U.S...'

Yes, because people always choose to exalt the light bearers instead of the recieving the Light they bear. They choose to worship the Messengers but they ignore the message. They choose to revere the teacher, but don't bother learning anything he teaches. The world worships Lucifer(Light Bearer) indeed.

But you can fight it, you have that power as a child of God. Accept the Light for yourself. Heed the message of the messengers. Learn the lessons of the teachers. You will see the lightening flash from the east to the west, and you will know who Christ is, for he will become the reality of your existance.'For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' Phillipians 1:21

'India is not a peaceful country however as the U.S. is from an internal standpoint, Ron. '

India certainly has conflict, but then, I haven't heard of 3000+ people dying in buildings under terrorist attack in India lately. Truth is that which is. 2 nights ago on the local news there was a woman who had been attacked by a man in broad daylight. He didn't ask for anything, just walked up to her and proceeded to start slashing her with a knife. The day before, a teenage boy was murdered in the parking lot of a Safeway. Either one of those days, or not many days before, a little girl was kidnapped out of her home. Are those things peace? I mean, that's just my area, and that isn't all of them either, those are just the ones that made the headlines. I have no idea what's been going on in all the big cities in the other 49 states of late. Though I hope for the best.

Truth is that which is.
reply by
liz beech
2/15/2002 (11:02)
 reply top
YES, YES, YES - thank you Ron - you have put it so well.

Non-violent resistance has hardly ever been tried, and when it has it has 'worked'. I don't want to claim any specialalness, but when, along with hundreds of others, in the eighties, I participated in non-violent direct action to get cruise missiles removed from the European air-bases we succeeded in our aims, despite a vicious press campaign which did everything it could to discredit the dirty, commie women of Greenham Common. I was not the only person to give up years of conventional living and live, in the open, be arrested, go to jail, acquire criminal records, which allowed the US authorities to refuse us entrance, even for a holiday, to the USA. Many of us have not been able to get jobs EVER SINCE, because we have criminal records. It was worth it., even though, as I have said before, I lost custody of my children as a result.

They're alright, and I'm alright - alive and kicking, and still knowing that non-violence is the appropriate response.

Yes, I know that Regan and Thatcher et. al claim that 'they were the ones who saw the folly of these weapons, but I don't mind about that one bit. In fact, when the IMF treaty was signed I sent Maragret Thatcher a card thanking her for her speech at Downing Street in which she said that 'the world was a safer place with the removal of these weapons' and signed it Liz, a Greenham Common woman.

It doesn't matter who takes the credit. That isn't and wasn't the point. The point is making the change.
reply by
Pavel
2/18/2002 (14:58)
 reply top
As I remember - emancipation of India was a resault of England weakness - caused by WWII - extrimally violent historical event! If not this coincidence - englishmen would just shoot Gandi's demonstration , and we woold remember him as beautiful , but fool lunatic...