Iran pipeline route is the goal

The ultimate purpose of the unprecedented actions and postures being taken by the current United States administration is not Iraq or Iraq’s oil. There is ample evidence from sources available to the public, to indicate that Iraq is not the real goal. Like Afghanistan, Iraq is being taken in preparation for the invasion of Iran. As surprising as it may sound, control of a certain pipeline route from Baku to the Persian Gulf, through Iran is the final goal.

The East Asia oil market has been clearly identified by the United States Department of Energy and other industry research groups as being the fastest growing and the most profitable oil market in the coming decades. The key to control of the East Asian oil trade, as I’ve explained below, is control of the shortest and most economical route for transporting oil from the Caspian Basin to the open sea. That route leads from the southern shore of the Caspian Sea directly through Iran to the Persian Gulf. Control of this route is also essential in maintaining some degree of control over the emerging giant economy of China. Control of this pipeline route is the ultimate trump card in the great game being played out among competing world oil companies in the Caspian Basin. Finally, it is felt that control of this route and the resulting control of the East Asian market, will allow American oil to maintain their supremacy over the emerging European Union dominated by France and Germany.

Please take a moment and read through the following paragraphs and let me know if it strikes you as particularly probable. Most of it can be sourced to the Dept. of Energy's web site "Country Analysis Briefs" and “Caspian Oil Export Options”. Blair's comments are quoted in the latest issue of TIME. The remainder can be found on a variety of web sites relating to the Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and projections of future oil demand in Asia.

The rise of the European Union has presented an increasingly serious challenge to the dominance of American corporate interests. Corporate America has responded by directing Washington to attempt to counter this challenge in a wide variety of ways, NAFTA being one of the earlier responses and perhaps the example best known to the public. Almost certainly, the most central aspect of this global economic struggle is the competition to become the 21st century’s dominant player in the oil trade.

The Caspian Sea Basin has emerged as the key arena in the struggle among western powers for dominance in the post-Soviet Union era.

page 1 of 10
Although moderately well reported in the Western European media, the American public has remained completely oblivious to the “great game” that is being played out in the Caspian Sea oil fields.

The U.S. Department of Energy has identified the oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region as, by far, the most important reserves for the next several decades. The DOE has reported the oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region to exceed those of the Arabian peninsula (for example) by as much as twenty fold. If suitable export routes can be secured by American oil interests, known oil deposits alone, will mean virtual independence from the Gulf States.

These vast reserves were formerly unavailable to the west because the entire shoreline of the Caspian Sea was controlled by the Soviet Union and Iran. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the vast area around the Caspian Sea was broken up into a number of newly independent states. Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan hold much of the land bordering the Caspian Sea. These newly formed states are run by small oligarchies that have proved relatively eager to make deals with foreign oil companies. Financially satisfying a very few key nationals in these new states has been sufficient to secure immensely profitable drilling and pipeline deals. From the perspective of western corporations, it’s almost like doing business a half century ago in the Gulf region.

Russia and Iran hold the remaining shoreline. Russia has its own corporate oil interests and, although as eager for profits as any other player, does not lend itself to one-sided oil development arrangements. On the southernmost shore of the Caspian, Iran, as explained below, controls the ideal pipeline route for shipping oil to the Persian Gulf and then on to India, Indonesia and China. This Asian oil market is expected to be, by far, the most profitable in coming decades.

The incredibly oil rich area of the Caspian Basin, being fought over by every nation with major oil interests, holds the promise for the West of complete independence from oil now being supplied by the increasingly uncooperative Islamic states in the Persian Gulf region.

Unreported in the mainstream American media the intense struggle among the western powers for favorable positions in the oil fields of the Caspian Sea region is much more widely discussed in Europe. Major players (in what the European media calls the reincarnation of the “great game” of Victorian times) include nearly every industrialized country on the planet.

page 2 of 10
Even China, whose oil consumption is expected increase 10 times faster than Europe’s in the next decade, has made attempts to tap into the Caspian oil fields. China, anticipating its vast energy needs in the coming decades, had plans for an 1,800 mile pipeline from the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan, to western China. The cost of this pipeline would have stretched China’s financial resources to the limit. To justify its construction, China needed assurances that a certain minimum number of barrels be available for pipeline transport each and every year. Initially, the “government” of Kazakhstan was willing to guarantee the requisite oil flow and China prepared to go forward with the plan. However, what some sources describe as “outside influences bent on derailing China’s pipeline plans” convinced or paid Kazakhstan to revise their oil export estimate downward. China was then forced to scrap any immediate plans for direct access to Caspian oil.

Preventing China from gaining direct access to the Caspian oil fields is absolutely essential to creating and maintaining the “balance of world power” as defined by corporate America (or corporate Europe for that matter). In the opinion of the current United States administration, American corporations must control the routes that will supply China, India and Indonesia’s vast need for oil during the coming decades.

The DOE has identified China as becoming the world largest oil consumer during this century. As the century progresses, the oil consumption of China together with Japan, the Korean peninsula. Indonesia and India is expected to increase at a rate ten times greater than American or European consumption. The DOE has further reported that East Asian oil sales will command substantially higher prices than oil sold in Europe or North America. These factors combine to make this particular market the most sought after prize of the “great game”. The control of the oil flowing to East Asia is one of the most important, if not the most important keys to global economic domination in the 21st century.

At present, all of the existing and proposed pipelines for oil export from the Caspian Sea run more or less westward to the Black Sea or the Mediterranean. A pipeline from the northern Caspian through Russia to Western Europe would be far too costly, and would put Russia in an intolerably strong position with regard to the European Union’s energy needs. Oil presently being piped to the Black Sea eventually must be transported by tanker through the Dardanelle’s to the Mediterranean, a route that is becoming increasingly troublesome due to congested traffic in the straits and Turkey’s “environmental concerns” read: financial demands.

Even under the best of circumstances, transporting oil through Turkey to the Mediterranean and then through the Suez Canal for
page 3 of 10
shipment to the Far East would be costly and politically unpredictable requiring the continuing consent of the numerous relatively sophisticated and troublesome intervening nations.

DOE and EIA studies, available to the public, report the most economical export route for oil from the Caspian Basin to the East Asian markets as being a direct route through Iran to the Persian Gulf. Current sanctions prevent American companies from doing business with Iran. Even if these sanctions were lifted, the current government of Iran would prove to be a “difficult” partner. This would leave American oil in a position no better than its present troublesome reliance on oil from the other Islamic States. Indeed, the underlying reason for the sanctions against Iran is to discourage European oil interests from risking capital on a trans-Iran pipeline and buy time for American efforts to “create a more favorable political climate” in Iran. It has been decided that a regime change in Iran is the only long-term way to protect the major investment that will be required to build the American owned Baku-Persian Gulf pipeline.

Regardless of these circumstances, this pipeline route
from the southern Caspian, directly through Iran to the Persian Gulf, is the key to American Oil’s plan for the 21st century.
Affecting a regime change in Iran is an absolutely essential element of this plan. To bring this about required a comprehensive and interlocking plan that would have been nearly impossible to carry out with a Democratic administration in Washington D.C. The “accidental” election of George Bush, with his intimate ties to the industry, provided American oil with an opportunity that was very unlikely to ever be repeated.

The most prudent way to secure Iran is to first flank it on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq). This serves the dual purpose of providing the best possible staging areas for the invasion of Iran and prevents retaliation from those two nearby countries. Also the future occupation of Iran would prove to be much more problematical without first “stabilizing” the neighboring areas. Finally, any new government established in Iran that cooperates with western interests would be subject to constant destabilizing actions from Islamic fundamentalists in near-by states unless those states were first “secured”.

To create a degree of acceptance in the world community for this blatant use of America’s military to enable the designs of private corporate interests, some attempt needed to be made at manufacturing “plausible justification” for invasion of these three countries.
Sorting through recent domestic and world events that have seemed to justify armed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq to determine which occurrences were “managed” is beyond the scope of
page 4 of 10

this article. However, it is clear to most of the world, (outside the United States) that the Bush administration has intended all along to invade Iraq regardless what Saddam Hussein does or doesn’t do.

If Iraq doesn’t show the U.N. some weapons of mass destruction “they are hiding them and must be invaded”. If Iraq does show the U.N. some weapons, then “they have been lying to us and must be invaded”. Either way, it has been set up so there is absolutely no way Iraq can avoid invasion.

After Saddam Hussein’s regime has been toppled, do not expect the victors to make any serious attempt at establishing a democratic government. Democratic governments are far too difficult to control by foreign interests. (As has been done in Afghanistan) in Iraq (and later in Iran) the Bush administration will encourage a state of controllable semi-chaos in each country. Rival factions and even some factions overtly hostile to the occupation will be allowed to remain at large. This serves the dual purpose of preventing the establishment of a popular democratic government and provides on-going justification for an American military presence. Minor firefights and skirmishes in the countryside will also divert media attention from corporate activities.

A “likely” group of nationals will be selected by the occupying forces to speak for each country. To be selected, any group of nationals must meet the most important pre-requisite. They must have demonstrated that they will play ball with American oil.

As a clear illustration of why the United States government will not want to establish truly democratic governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, look to Germany and Japan. Both of these countries were invaded and occupied by the United States. In both countries, the U.S. government went to great lengths over an extended period of time to establish truly popular democratic governments. As a result, both of these nations are stable sovereign entities that make their own independent decisions based on what they believe to be most favorable to their national corporate interests and/or people.(2)

When dealing with legitimate, sovereign and democratic governments, global corporations find it far more difficult to work their will in a swift, consistent and predictable manner.





Page 5 of 10
The Tony Blair Factor:

Most of the world doesn’t believe the Bush administration has yet made a plausible case for war with Iraq. In fact, the current United States administration is loosing its tenuous grip on respectability all around the world. In Europe, Korea and Japan, the talk among the average citizens is of “America-the-arrogant” and “America-the bully”. The vast majority of people in Western Europe (estimates range from 80-90%) not only do not believe the American Administration’s stated reasons for war but also believe the real reasons are being concealed.

Tony Blair, on the other hand, has assured Bush his unstinting support. In spite of the opposition of many in his own party, and widespread criticism from the British public, Blair has promised that Britain’s troops will fight alongside American forces in Iraq. What’s the story here?

Well reported is Blair’s aspiration to make Britain a central figure in the attempt to assure that the European Union is a dependable, strategic global partner for the United States.(1) Blair is very troubled by the signs of a growing Franco-German alliance. Blair and corporate Britain are offended by the notion that France and Germany (not Britain) will determine the future of the European Union.

Less well reported, are corporate Britain’s troubles in the Caspian Sea oil fields. British oil is facing very stiff competition from the seemingly endless number of international oil companies fighting for dominance in the region.

As much as 50% of the known oil reserves in the Caspian Basin lie under water. Although the boarders of the new Caspian States are fairly well defined, ownership of the sea itself is highly unsettled. Because they are in dispute and, so-to-speak, “up for grabs”, it is these offshore deposits that are being fought over most vigorously. Which nation’s corporate giants will reap the biggest profits hinges to a large extent on the claims and counter-claims to different regions of the Sea and the vast oil deposits beneath its waters.

One example among many: British Petroleum and Britain’s Aramco have been working closely with the government of Azerbaijan exploring an oil rich area known as the Araz-Alov-Sharg structure. In July 2001, Iranian military gunboats confronted a British Petroleum research vessel exploring this area. The Iranian gunboat ordered the B.P. vessel out of the waters, claiming they belonged to Iran. To add insult to injury, Iran announced its decision to award a license for the area to Royal Dutch Shell.

page 6 of 10
Britain owns approx. 20% of the Azerbaijani Caspian Oil Project. US Oil interests own approx 47%. Azerbaijan is playing ball for a 20% share.

Little progress has been made among the littoral states as to how to divide control of the Caspian Sea. Understandably, very influential elements in corporate Britain see the present regime Iran as a major hindrance to a “successful outcome” in the new oil fields.

The Azerbaijani Project, however, is only one example of many current Anglo-American projects. Once the trans-Iran pipeline is in place, highly profitable deals will be made with all the Caspian States for transport of their oil to, what will be, the most profitable market of all: East-Asia. As the Chinese economy emerges in the next two decades, it will be, by far, the most important consumer in this all-important market.

A fairly compact summary of Tony Blair’s motives for committing British troops in Iraq (and presumably later in Iran)
was contained in remarks he made to British diplomats in early January 2003: “It is simply wrong”, he said, “for rich nations to expect the United States to do all the dirty work in the world.” By “rich nations” Blair meant nations with a significant corporate presence in the Caspian Basin. Then Blair got right to the point: “Such a policy is not just indulgent;” he said, “it risks sacrificing any chance of influencing post-conflict arrangements”. (1)

What Tony Blair meant by “post-conflict arrangements” was perhaps unclear to the British public and completely opaque to the American public, but it was crystal clear to British corporations with interests in the Caspian Sea. It was equally clear to the American oil interests who have guaranteed British oil a percentage share of the future trans-Iran pipeline exports to the biggest market in the coming decades: East Asia.














page 7 of 10

Jefferson’s foresight

The founding fathers were well aware that they had formed a completely new form of government. They were very conscious of the fragility of their experiment. This forced them to think deeply and broadly about the most serious threats to their new government “of the people, by the people and for the people”. They had to meditate on both the threats that existed in their time and also clearly envision threats that might emerge in the future. The institution of “corporate aristocracy” fit into both of those categories. Here are Jefferson’s comments, uttered almost 190 years ago.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

We have already reached the point where the “moneyed corporations” no longer feel any need to “challenge” the government. They have already co-opted it. The executive branch is already peopled by corporate men, the law makers have all been bought and paid for by the corporations and the administrators of the regulatory agencies (such as the SEC) are selected by an executive branch whose main concern is to avoid any threat to the corporate world’s ability to act unilaterally and without serious regulation of any kind.

So there can be no real struggle between the government and the corporations. The only struggle is between corporations and a powerless and largely voiceless public. Since, when it comes to challenging or regulating the large corporations, the public no longer has any real representation in government, corporations have reached the point where they can treat the public with the same contempt the aristocrats of centuries past treated the dirty and hungry peasants.

Although they exert an increasing amount of control
over public decision making and foreign policy decisions,
corporations have no “democratic legitimacy”:

For many years, when speaking of the actions of the United States government in the global theater, the journalists have used the words “United States government”, “America”, “the American people”, “we” or “us” interchangeably. This practice has become increasingly misleading over the years. A point has now been reached where even some of the most uninformed Americans realize

page 8 of 10

that, when it comes to global politics and in many cases, domestic politics as well, the United States government represents not the American people but the interests of large American corporations in general and a selected number of large corporations in particular.

The average American has absolutely no say in the domestic or international goals and plans of these vast global corporations. Although, to an ever-increasing degree, these large corporations determine the very structure and substance of American life, each year the public has less of a say in their regulation.

One of the more blatant examples of this was the government’s transparently insincere attempt at corporate regulation following the scandals of 2002, despite the desperate appeals of the victimized public.

Terrorists must be identified and eliminated from all countries in which they operate. However, it is not some foreign born terrorist menace that poses the greatest danger to the American values of representation, equality and freedom. It is the corporate aristocracy of which Jefferson warned us, now intertwined within the structures of the government agencies that were created to regulate it, that poses the most real and present threat to our endangered democratic ideals.










Footnotes:

(1) Time February 3, 2003: page 41












page 9 of 10
(2)
Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
The Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

Q: In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, arise as a direct result?
Choose one of the following:
(a) 0
(b) zero
(c) none
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1
(f) zip
(g) squat
(h) nada
(i) bubkis


















page 10 of 10