|
It has
never been about WMDs! |
"... it does not matter if the war is not
real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not
meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.'" (George
Orwell, 1984)
For past year or two we were
told Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) and Saddam is
about to get his hand on nuclear bomb. Government
agencies from US and its allied particularly UK and Australia
always told the world that Saddam already has chemical and
biological weapons and is perusing nuclear power and is on the
road to make the first atomic bomb in Arabs world. Even media
believed it and echoed the government's concerns. We were even
shown aluminum tubes, a crappy presentation by Powell at the UN and a
rotten dossier by Blair that was copied from some one else's. That was
only a false statement and it well fooled the media as well as
millions of easy believer. None were found true.
Since 1986 when US gave vales of biological
agents to the Iraqi scientist, Saddam has always had the
chemical and biological weapons; he used them against its own
people and against Iranians in war in late 80s. He even used Iranian POWs to test
some of his bio-weapons. Saddam always wanted to be the
most powerful in Arabs world particularly in middle east. But
there is always a very long road from wishing what you want to
be and what you can really be. If wishes and long term plans taken
out of Saddam, he would be left with nothing more than a few
shells and small bombs that would create some damages,
something like fire cracker for people like us that a small
size of it would be a lot as we never use them.
So, what was the fuss about?
Certainly it wasn't about him or his arsenal of WMDs, after
all French, Germans , and Russians sold him what he needed for
it and they kept all receipts. They all knew what Saddam had
and what he did not have when it came to WMDs. All including
Americans, British, Australians on one side and everyone else
against the war on the other side knew Iraq had never had the
capabilities to go into a full scale chemical-biological war.
The reason for nuclear weapons was to stop him from developing
it. Even though Saddam had the biological weapon capabilities
and we were told he will use then, but he did not. Saddam
wanted the history see him as a clean man, some one who said
from the beginning that he did not have WMDs and he stuck with
it.
So why Saddam never used his
his weapons? Americans say his generals did not want to end up
in international court as war criminals, and Saddam stands by
his words that he never had any WMDs and what he had was
destroyed. Who is telling the truth? No one not Americans, not
Iraqis.
Iraqis did have WMD program and a large
arsenal of biological weapons, in October 2002 Saddam's son
Uday met Iranian officials in a border city in west of Iran to
arrange for transfer of those weapons. Few days later trucks
loaded with WMDs crossed the border and headed to a new hiding
place in Iran. Americans know this information very well as it
was reflected in Persian language newspapers belong to the
opposition outside Iran, particularly the armed opposition
group Mojahedin Khalgh (MK) made it very clear in meetings
with US officials in Washington. These weapons are still in
hiding in Iran.
WMD program by Iraqis was only an excuse for
Americans to attack Iraq as they wanted to have a foothold in
middle east. They were getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia,
their presence in Afghanistan is not as strategic as they
wanted, and if they moved out of Persian Gulf it would made it
difficult to have control over the oil.
Oil was the reason for the invasion of Iraq,
but not that we buy oil $5 cheaper now. The story is more
complicated than a $5 reduction in oil prices. As we have seen
the price of oil not only has not dropped for past 18 months,
but it has gained to an 18 years high.
 |
|
Caspian Sea Region |
In the north of Persian Gulf in Caspian Sea
region, there is one of the richest regions in the world that
if it got to the point of production, it will redundant OPEC.
For past century, then the Soviet Union was
aware of the oil in this region. Decision to extract the oil
was made after it broke off and the states became independent.
The oil-rich region is shared between
Russia, Kazakstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Uzbekistan.
The region and the profit from the selling of oil is divided
between all 6 countries, Iran receives 13% of the income and
the rest is divided between the other 5 shareholders. If oil production reaches its peak,
Russia can redundant OPEC. The under ground reserves are said
to be one of the largest in the world. Russia can be come
richer than Saudi Arabia.
 |
|
The
pipeline to the Black sea |
IN October 2003 Russia opened a pipeline
from the Caspian sea to the Black sea, where it exports the
oil. There was delays for the laying down of the pipeline as
Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan could not agree on the passage
of the line. So what will happen if Russia becomes rich,
fealty rich? It can take over the price of oil and by setting
aside OPEC, it can control the world's economy. The Cold War
can start again. In about 20 years time Russia with power of
old Soviet Union and the money of rich current small-size Russia will
dominate the world and the economy; simply it will become the
superpower.
The US in other hand, as it is losing the
control over oil-rich regions, such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi, will
suffer from the consequences. It will drop from the
super-power title and possibly has to buy oil in tea cups. The
best option not be cornered in such position in 20 years from
now, was to take control of what they can have now. The answer
was taking the control of the Persian Gulf.
 |
|
Oil
region in Persian Gulf |
The Persian Gulf, so far, is the richest oil
region in the world. It supplies about 60% of world's oil
supply. The US had the control over the region for quiet
sometimes. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman are under the
control of US. Bahrain, United Arab Emirate are under British
control. Iranian government is supported by British.
To have the full control, the US had to
control Iraq. In invasion of Iraq British took over the oil
rich south of Iraq, Basra (the large oil region); and the US
in control of northern region Mousal (the small oil region). So
if the US wants to be in control, it has to add one more
region to its collection. Saudi Arabia was on the edge of
cutting-off from US when they asked for the removal of their
air base from Saudi. US moved its base to Oman, that was a
step back in control of the region. In 2004 they have the
control over the troubled half of Iraq, less control over
Saudi, and no control over Iran (Iran is mainly controlled by
British).
Despite the money, effort, and lives the US
government is putting in Middle East, a little gain they are
achieving. in other hand the British, with little effort they
put, they have gained a lot. This leaves the US on a very
shaky grounds that will make it look incompetent or stupid.
To have a wining card in 20 years time the
US must have a winning card now in its hand, otherwise it
will lose the game to Russians. the US must move and gain more
control over the Persian Gulf Region. It either will kick out
British from south of Iraq, or eventually will change the
government in Iran. In 1979 when the US controlled Shah of
Iran was replaced by British back Islamic government
(Khomeini) US didn't mind and had nothing in mind for the
future; but now it has no choice. For the US it is either move
south and take over the southern Iraq, it has to negotiate
with British, and stabilize the situations in Saudi Arabia.
Or, change the government in Iran. The US already the control
over Pakistan, And Afghanistan; Turkey is part of NATO and has
no choice but to cooperate, it leaves the US with a black hole
right in the middle that is called Iran.
The US has absolutely no choice but to
change the government in Iran. It will lose the game in 20
year's time if it doesn't. very soon we will witness changes
in Iran, change of government possibly; but not the kind of
attack we saw in Iraq. In July 2004 we saw the Iranian
government got into trouble with British and European Union
over the nuclear reactors. This is the beginning of the game
that US has started to make a move to overtake the control of
the region. It is very much possible that Iranian government
in order to hold to power cut ties from British and join US,
but it seems very remote as the mullah's of Iran have always
been a servant of British rather than Americans. If Americans
want to have their own people in power in Iran, they should
look into bringing someone like the Shah.
The future events will follow in Iran, what
was supposed to happen in Iraq has already happened. The next
step of the operation will take place after the presidential
election in the US in November 2004, possibly in early 2005 we
will witness major changes in that region. Iran is well aware
of of Us intention and is trying to keep them busy in Iraq so
they won't have time to pay attention to others. Iranian
government by supporting insurgents in Iraq is trying to
divert attention in order to buy time and drag thing until
November hoping if Democrats are returned to office and they
will be home safe.
|
Who should be considered to
be a terrorist: |
The case for Iraq:
- Arsenal of weapons: In October
2002, 6 months before the start of the war, Saddam's son,
Uday, met Iranian officials in a border city and made
arrangements for the transfer of Iraq's chemical and
biological weapons to Iran as a safe deposit. Iraq did the
same thing with its commercial and war planes in 1990 the
first Gulf War
- Local terrorism:
- massacre of political prisoners in 1987
- imposing a dictator regime and forcing
the public into Taliban-like Islamic laws
- taking away freedom from the public and
interfering with personal lives
- strong corruption within the layers of
government from top to bottom
- making elicit drugs freely available
- inability in economy and the rundown of
the economy that results in poverty and high unemployment
- torture of political prisoners
- humanright abuse
The case for Iran is much stronger and if
any country should have been considered to be liberated from
its "evil" regime, it should have been Iran first not Iraq.
Iranian regime was put in place in 1979 by British after
Americans removed Shah of Iran.
At the highest level of the cold-war, Shah
was weak and unable to stop the communism spreading south from
then Soviet Union. The best option was an Islamic government.
Islam could stop the communism as fundamentally it is against
it. Jimmy Carter the US president agreed with British to put
in place the Islamic regime and removal of Shah. British have
always enjoyed the cooperation of Islamic movements for many
decades, and the US always had the Shah under its thumb. On
1978 Saddam in Iraq, 1979 Mullahs in Iran, and 1979 Mujahedin
in Afghanistan came to power. Straight line from east to west
to stop Soviets from reaching the warm waters of Persian Gulf.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of cold-war, it was time to make the necessary changes
and bring the democracy back to the region. As the US failed
to remove the Mojahedin from governing Afghanistan that
resulted to become Taliban -and they admitted to this failure,
they also failed to change the regime in Iran that they
brought into power. President Regan stopped the cold-war, Bush
senior was busy with the first Gulf war and the economy after
that, it was left to President Clinton to make the changes.
Clinton was busy building up the economy and paid a little
attention to Iran. Democrats thought with discussions and soft
policy they can stop Iran from terrorising the rest of the
world.
This soft approach did a little to persuade
Iranians from interfering and international thuggery.
Republicans started to correct this mistakes and soon
President George W. Bush took office he decided to make the
changes. It was necessary to attack Iraq in this way as Saddam
was not a kind of dictator to go away when he was asked to.
Mullahs of Iran, unlike Saddam don't need a war as they are
not as gutsy as Saddam. Different place different game;
different game, different tactics.
The changes to middle east has already
begun, first it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. After the US
election in November, no matter who will become the president
he will have no choice but to continue the changes. In early
2005 we will witness radical changes in Iran as the US has
already started building up a case against Iran.
The so called "Axis of evil" was put in
place by themselves (British and US) in Iran. Russia is
building a nuclear power plant that can produce radioactive
materials that can be used in bombs. The US favorite Pakistan
sold the technology that enables them to enrich uranium.
Mullahs of Iran are nothing but the puppets of British. If
international community wants to stop the threats to the world
from Iran, instead of attacking or sanctions, they have to go
and see the British and ask them to withdrew their support
from them.
The real answer to "who is the real evil"
remains with the US and its ally British that bring these
regimes into power. Yes they are evil, but who let them in?
