Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
The Petrodollar Wars: The Iraq-Petrodollar Connection Part C #3
by Jerry Robinson
In an interview with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Greenspan elaborated on the comment in his book by saying that removing Saddam from power was “essential” to keep the “existing system” in place.
Apparently everyone in Greenspan’s circle “knew” that Iraq was about oil. However, the average American was told exactly the opposite by the Bush Administration and the corrupt and derelict corporate-controlled mainstream media.
In a televised interview with Frontline, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III made the following statement regarding U.S. national security policy:
“I have been a member of four (Presidential) administrations. And in every one of those administrations we had written as a national security policy that we would go to war to protect the national energy reserves of the Persian Gulf, if necessary.”
General John Abizaid, who was formerly the Commander of the USCENTCOM during the Iraq war, stated during an October 2007 round table discussion entitled: “Courting Disaster: The Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University:
“Of course (the Iraq war) is about oil, we can’t deny that.”
Former U.S. Ambassador, and war hawk, John Bolton publicly admitted in an interview on FoxNews dated Oct 22, 2011, that the multiple wars that America has fought in the Middle East have been about securing oil supplies. Speaking of the U.S.-Middle East conflicts, Bolton stated:
“The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.”
Based upon the quotes above, we have no need to wonder if Iraq’s oil supplies played a role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of that nation. After all, the global elites have told us in no uncertain terms that the Iraq war was clearly about oil and maintaining the American empire’s grip on the oil-rich region. In 2011, this was further confirmed when a torrent of damning government documents were leaked.
Finally, consider the following words from one of the chief architects behind the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney. In an interview with C-Span recorded in 1994 — nine years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — Cheney was asked about his opinion of the previous 1991 Gulf War. His answer is revealing.
Q: Do you think the U.S. or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years.
In the north, you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.”
Apparently, Saddam’s move to switch Iraq’s oil sales from dollars to euros may have been enough to change Cheney’s mind about sacrificing American lives. Based upon the quotes above, and upon the mountain of evidence that we have today, it is obvious that oil had played some role in the U.S.-led Iraq invasion.
Sadly, innocent civilians in Iraq are the ones who paid the ultimate price for the U.S. invasion. To date, over 105,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war commenced in March 2003. And many of these casualties were children.
Let’s take a look at what has transpired in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to see if the words and the actions line up.
The Rush for Post-War Iraqi Oil
In late 2002 and early 2003, the preparations for the Iraq war were well under way.
As the United States sought international support for the war, several nations expressed opposition to the invasion. China, Russia, and France were among these nations.
Many in the corporate-controlled American media portrayed these nations as “sympathizers” and “supporters” of terrorism due to their hesitancy to invade Iraq on groundless charges.
However, what the corrupt media outlets failed to mention was that these nations had existing oil contracts with Iraq that would be endangered in the event that the West gained control of Iraq.
In an October 2002 interview with the Observer UK, a Russian official at the United Nations stated:
“The concern of my government is that the concessions agreed between Baghdad and numerous enterprises will be reneged upon, and that U.S. companies will enter to take the greatest share of those existing contracts. . . . Yes, if you could say it that way — an oil grab by Washington.”
With just a little bit of in-depth investigation, the clueless American elite media would have discovered that there was more to this than “sympathizing” with terrorists and that prior to the war, Russia was owed billions of dollars by Iraq. Russia had even billions more wrapped up in future contracts.
Together with France and China, Russia stood to gain billions in future oil contracts when, and if, sanctions were lifted against Iraq.
In a separate 2002 news article entitled, Oil After Saddam: All Bets Are In, Samer Shehata, a Middle East expert at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Washington, was interviewed regarding the situation.
“Russia, China, France have the highest stakes in the Iraqi oil industry. Once Saddam is out, everything becomes null and void, and there is no legal authority to enforce those claims.”
Is it any wonder why much of the world hates America? Of course, we are told that nations hate us because we have “blue jeans” and “fast cars.” We are told that foreign nations hate Americans because of our liberties.
The same corrupt outlets that cram this garbage down the public’s throats are the ones who lied to the American public about the real reasons for the war in Iraq. The truth is that very few foreign nations “hate” American citizens. Instead, they despise the actions of the American empire with its militaristic adventurism and its excessive intervention into foreign affairs.
The Most Damning Evidence of a Petrodollar Motive in the Iraq War
On June 5, 2003, the corrupt U.S. media missed one of the most important and revealing stories about the Iraq war. However, Carol Hoyas and Kevin Morrison from the London-based Financial Times reported on the story in a piece entitled: Iraq returns to international oil market. Here’s an excerpt of the story:
“Iraq on Thursday stepped back into the international oil market for the first time since the war, offering 10m barrels of oil from its storage tanks for sale to the highest bidder. For some international companies, it will be the first time in more than a year that they will do business directly with Iraq…
The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars – the international currency of oil sales – despite the greenback’s recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq’s recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.”
Is it not rather interesting to note that within weeks of the invasion of Iraq, all Iraqi oil sales were switched from the euro — back to the U.S. dollar?
Was this war, as Clark and Engdahl suggest, the first “petrodollar” war? I think the evidence is clear that it was.
Think about this. If Iraq was not ultimately about oil, then how ridiculous is it that a nearly bankrupt nation like America could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on “spreading democracy” to foreign nations, like Iraq, when our own nation is in a steep economic decline?
How are the American people able to afford such an altruistic foreign policy when they can’t even afford to take care of their own citizens?
And finally, since when has America become so interested in giving American lives and dollars for the benefit of foreign nations with nothing in return?
And speaking of return, what could Iraq possibly offer in return to America?
Perhaps Vice President Cheney answered that question best when he said in a 1999 speech at the Institute of Petroleum:
“The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies; even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”
Finally, consider Republican Senator Charles Hagel’s rather blunt statement given in a 2007 speech at the Catholic University of America regarding the true purposes behind the Iraq War:
“People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course, we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.”
Since 1980, America has devolved from being the world’s greatest creditor nation to the world’s greatest debtor nation. But thanks to the massive artificial demand for U.S. dollars and government debt made possible by the petrodollar system, America can continue its spending binges, imperial pursuits, reckless wars, and record deficits. In America today, we are living proof that having the world’s most important currency translates into a higher standard of living than most nations.
At one point in America’s history, our largest export was a variety of manufactured goods, made right here in the U.S.
Today, America’s largest export is the U.S. dollar.
And the dollar costs us practically nothing to create. How long will it be before the nations of the world figure out the dollar fiasco is a fraud? Instead of viewing U.S. dollars as worthless paper backed by nothing (as they should), foreign oil producers and consumers were convinced — and required — to hold U.S. dollars in order to purchase oil back in the 1970’s.
However, this demand for dollars is not genuine. It is purely artificial.
Dr. Bulent Gukay of Keele University puts it this way:
“This system of the U.S. dollar acting as global reserve currency in oil trade keeps the demand for the dollar ‘artificially’ high. This enables the U.S. to carry out printing dollars at a price of next to nothing to fund increased military spending and consumer spending on imports.
There is no theoretical limit to the amount of dollars that can be printed. As long as the U.S. has no serious challengers, and the other states have confidence in the U.S. dollar, the system functions.”
Pay particular attention to Dr. Gukay’s comment regarding “serious challengers” to the United States. And as the global economy continues to evolve, a whole host of competing currencies will rise to challenge the current dollar hegemony. In fact, that movement is already afoot.
What does that mean for you? In essence, expect perpetual wars against faceless and nameless enemies as we have seen in the War on “Terror.”
Expect the theater for these conflicts to be conveniently staged in Western Asia — where the majority of the world’s oil supplies lay waiting for their Western “liberators.”
When you “follow the money”, everything begins to make much more sense.
Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System, Part D
The War in Afghanistan and the New Great Game