There is No Peak Oil

Home (Main Menu)

Darfur? It's the Oil

Nuclear Primacy, Full Spectrum Dominance, and the New World Order

US Outflanked in Eurasia Energy Politics

War in Iran

The Ethanol Scam

  • 11-26-14: Is the Oil Gang striking at wind power?

    ARTICLE By F William Engdahl, September 14, 2007

    ``Confessions of an "ex" Peak Oil Believer

    The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. Peak Oil is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist ...

    Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right ...

    Intellectual fossils?

    The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a `fossil fuel,' a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago ...

    Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth , called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.

    An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950's in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

    Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world's largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

    Necessity: the mother of invention

    In the 1950's the Soviet Union faced `Iron Curtain' isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

    Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940's: where does oil come from?

    In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfiryev announced their conclusions: `Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.'

    [For a "deep" biological alternative, see Deep biogenic petroleum theory ]

    The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the `a-biotic' theory -- non-biological -- to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

    If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth's formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth's inner regions.

    They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form.

    `Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via `cold' eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,' Porfiryev stated.His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

    Defying conventional geology

    That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil.

    The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990's, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren -- the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

    Following their abiotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

    A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically "dry holes." ...

    If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It was not surprising that Washington would go about erecting a "wall of steel" -- a network of military bases and ballistic anti-missile shields around Russia, to cut her pipeline and port links to western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia.

    Halford Mackinder's worst nightmare -- a cooperative convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, born of necessity and need for oil to fuel economic growth -- was emerging. Ironically, it was the blatant US grab for the vast oil riches of Iraq and, potentially, of Iran, that catalyzed closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes, China and Russia, and a growing realization in western Europe that their options too were narrowing.

    [See Halford Mackinder ]

    The Peak King

    Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their "peak" was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert's Curve, and the peak as Hubbert's Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

    The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It "peaked" because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.

    Vietnam success

    While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960's, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep `abiotic' geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

    They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam's White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, abiotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world's largest oil producer by the mid-1980's. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

    Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only few Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that "alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia's) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high." In short, an absurdity ...

    Closing the door

    The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world's largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the abiotic techniques of deep drilling ...

    Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil ...

    Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950's. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.''


    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE By F William Engdahl, May 20, 2007

    ``Darfur? It's the Oil, Stupid

    China and USA in New Cold War over Africa's oil riches

    To paraphrase the famous quip during the 1992 US Presidential debates, when an unknown William Jefferson Clinton told then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, "It's the economy, stupid ," the present concern of the current Washington Administration over Darfur in southern Sudan is not, if we were to look closely, genuine concern over genocide against the peoples in that poorest of poor part of a forsaken section of Africa.

    No. "It's the oil, stupid."

    Hereby hangs a tale of cynical dimension appropriate to a Washington Administration that has shown no regard for its own genocide in Iraq, when its control over major oil reserves is involved. What's at stake in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil ...

    With its more than $1.3 trillion in mainly US dollar reserves at the People`s Bank of China, Beijing is engaging in active petroleum geopolitics. Africa is a major focus, and in Africa, the central region between Sudan and Chad is priority ... Darfur is a major battleground in this high-stakes contest for oil control ...

    Today China draws an estimated 30% of its crude oil from Africa. That explains an extraordinary series of diplomatic initiatives which have left Washington furious. China is using no-strings-attached dollar credits to gain access to Africa's vast raw material wealth, leaving Washington's typical control game via the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) out in the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot? ...

    China has been generous in dispensing its soft loans, with no interest or outright grants to some of the poorest debtor states of Africa. The loans have gone to infrastructure including highways, hospitals, and schools, a stark contrast to the brutal austerity demands of the IMF and World Bank.

    In 2006 China committed more than $8 billion to Nigeria, Angola and Mozambique, versus $2.3 billion to all sub-Saharan Africa from the World Bank. Ghana is negotiating a $1.2 billion Chinese electrification loan. Unlike the World Bank, a de facto arm of US foreign economic policy, China shrewdly attaches no strings to its loans.

    This oil-related Chinese diplomacy has led to the bizarre accusation from Washington that Beijing is trying to "secure oil at the sources," something Washington foreign policy has itself been preoccupied with for at least a century.

    No source of oil has been more the focus of China-US oil conflict of late than Sudan, home of Darfur.

    Sudan oil riches

    Beijing's China National Petroleum Company, CNPC, is Sudan's largest foreign investor, with some $5 billion in oil field development. Since 1999 China has invested at least $15 billion in Sudan. It owns 50% of an oil refinery near Khartoum with the Sudan government. The oil fields ... are concentrated in the south, site of a long-simmering civil war, partly financed covertly by the United States, to break the south from the Islamic Khartoum-centered north ...

    A look at the southern Sudan oil concessions shows that China's CNPC holds rights to bloc 6 which straddles Darfur, near the border to Chad and the Central African Republic. In April 2005 Sudan's government announced it had found oil in South Darfur whoich is estimated to be able when developed to pump 500,000 barrels/day. The world press forgot to report that vital fact in discussing the Darfur conflict.

    Using the genocide charge to militarize Sudan's oil region ...

    The United States, acting through surrogate allies in Chad and neighboring states has trained and armed the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army [SPLA], headed until his death in July 2005, by John Garang, trained at US Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia.

    By pouring arms into first southern Sudan in the eastern part and since discovery of oil in Darfur, to that region as well, Washington fuelled the conflict that led to tens of thousands dying and several million driven to flee their homes. Eritrea hosts and supports the SPLA ...

    The US Senate adopted a resolution in February, 2006, that requested North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Darfur, as well as a stronger U.N. peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. A month later, President Bush also called for additional NATO forces in Darfur. Uh huh, Genocide? Or oil?

    The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has for Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, in effect every country on Sudan's border ...

    Chevron's 1974 oil project

    US oil majors have known about Sudan's oil wealth since the early 1970's. In 1979, Jafaar Nimeiry, Sudan head of state, broke with the Soviets and invited Chevron to develop oil in the Sudan. That was perhaps a fatal mistake. UN Ambassador George H.W. Bush had personally told Nimeiry of satellite photos indicating oil in Sudan. Nimeiry took the bait. Wars over oil have been the consequence ever since.

    Chevron found big oil reserves in southern Sudan. It spent $1.2 billion finding and testing them. That oil triggered what is called Sudan's second civil war in 1983. Chevron was target of repeated attacks and killings and suspended the project in 1984. In 1992, it sold it's Sudanese oil concessions. Then China began to develop the abandoned Chevron fields in 1999 with notable results.

    But Chevron is not far from Darfur today.

    Condi Rice's Chevron is in neighboring Chad, together with the other US oil giant, ExxonMobil. They've just built a $3.7 billion oil pipeline carrying 160,000 barrels/day of oil from Doba in central Chad near Darfur Sudan, via Cameroon to Kribi on the Atlantic Ocean, destined for US refineries. To do it, they worked with Chad "President for life," Idriss Deby ...

    Supplied with US military aid, training and weapons, in 2004 Deby launched the initial strike that set off the conflict in Darfur, using members of his elite Presidential Guard who originate from the province, providing the men with all terrain vehicles, arms and anti-aircraft guns to Darfur rebels fighting the Khartoum government in the southwest Sudan. The US military support to Deby in fact had been the trigger for the Darfur bloodbath. Khartoum reacted and the ensuing debacle was unleashed in full tragic force.

    ... The US Government claims unproven genocide as a pretext to ultimately bring UN/NATO troops into the oilfields of Darfur and south Sudan. Oil, not human misery, is behind Washington's new interest in Darfur.

    The "Darfur genocide" campaign began in 2003, the same time the Chad-Cameroon pipeline oil began to flow. The US now had a base in Chad to go after Darfur oil and, potentially, co-opt China's new oil sources. Darfur is strategic, straddling Chad, Central African Republic, Egypt and Libya.

    US military objectives in Darfur, and the Horn of Africa more widely, are being served at present by the US and NATO backing of the African Union troops in Darfur. There NATO provides ground and air support for AU troops who are categorized as "neutral" and "peacekeepers." Sudan is at war on three fronts, each country, Uganda, Chad, and Ethiopia, with a significant US military presence and ongoing US military programs. The war in Sudan involves both US covert operations and US trained "rebel" factions coming in from South Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia and Uganda.

    Chad's Deby looks to China too

    The completion of the US and World Bank-financed oil pipeline from Chad to the Cameroon coast was designed as one part of a far grander Washington scheme to control the oil riches of central Africa from Sudan to the entire Gulf of Guinea.

    But Washington's erstwhile pal, Chad's President for Life, Idriss Deby, began to get unhappy with his small share of the US-controlled oil profits. When he and the Chad Parliament decided in early 2006 to take more of the oil revenues to finance military operations and beef up its army, new World Bank President, Iraq war architect, Paul Wolfowitz, moved to suspend loans to the country.

    Then that August, after Deby had won re-election, he created Chad's own oil company, SHT, and threatened to expel Chevron and Malaysia's Petronas for not paying taxes owed, and demanding a 60% share of the Chad oil prieline. In the end he came to terms with the oil companies, but winds of change were blowing.

    Deby also faces growing internal opposition from a Chad rebel group, United Front for Change, known under its French name as FUC, which he claims is being covertly funded by Sudan. This region is a very complex part of the world of war. The FUC has based itself in Darfur.

    Into this unstable situation, Beijing has shown up in Chad with a full coffer of aid money in hand. In late January, Chinese President Hu Jintao made a state visit to Sudan and to Cameroon among other African states. In 2006 China's leaders visited no less than 48 African states.

    In August 2006 Beijing hosted Chad's Foreign Minister for talks and resumption of formal diplomatic ties cut in 1997. China has begun to import oil from Chad as well as Sudan. Not that much oil, but if Beijing has its way, that will soon change.

    This April [2007], Chad's Foreign Minister announced that talks with China over greater China participation in Chad's oil development were "progressing well." He referred to the terms the Chinese seek for oil development, calling them, "much more equal partnerships than those we are used to having." ...

    "West Africa's oil has become of national strategic interest to us," stated US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner already back in 2002. Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the US Iraq policy "with other means", control of oil everywhere. China is challenging that control "everywhere," especially in Africa. It amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.''


    Source: "Mother Jones Headlines"

    Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007

    The Politics of the Belly: Who's Enabling Burma's Junta? By Daniel Pepper

    ``[China is] Burma's largest trading partner and, according to human-rights advocates, the military regime's best friends. "China has provided the weapons and money to make this massacre happen while using its veto to paralyze any response from the UN Security Council," says Jeremy Woodrum, co-founder of the US Campaign for Burma, which has advocated for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics next year.

    "[China] has an increasing demand for natural resources such as natural gas and timber, which the junta generously provides as long as China does not disrupt the brutal status quo."

    But China is not the only country doing business with Burma, only the largest. In recent years India has made an about-face, shifting dramatically from a policy of supporting opposition party leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy movement and criticizing the military government, to courting the junta, cooperating on cross-border anti-insurgency campaigns, and bidding for Burma's natural resources.''

    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE from The Financial Times, 2-18-07,

    By F William Engdahl

    [Nuclear Primacy, Full Spectrum Dominance, and the New World Order]

    ``The frank words of Russia's President Vladimir Putin to the assembled participants of the annual Munich Wehrkunde security conference have unleashed a storm of self-righteous protest from Western media and politicians. A visitor from another planet might have the impression that the Russian President had abruptly decided to launch a provocative confrontation policy with the West reminiscent of the 1943-1991 Cold War.

    United States military policies since 1991 [show that] we are already deep in a New Cold War, which literally threatens the future of life on this planet. The debacle in Iraq, or the prospect of a US tactical nuclear pre-emptive strike against Iran are ghastly enough. In comparison to what is at play in the US global military buildup against its most formidable remaining global rival, Russia, they loom relatively small.

    The US military policies since the end of the Soviet Union and emergence of the Republic of Russia in 1991 are in need of close examination in this context. Only then do Putin's frank remarks on February 10 [2007] at the Munich Conference on Security make sense.

    Because of the misleading accounts of most of Putin's remarks in most western media, it's worth reading in full in English (go to

    for official English translation) ...

    [Putin] declared, `Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race?'

    What does he refer to here? Few are aware that while claiming it is doing so to protect itself against the risk of `rogue state' nuclear missile attack from the likes of North Korea or perhaps one day Iran, the US recently announced it is building massive anti-missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Poland? Missile defense? What's this all about?

    Missile Defense and a US Nuclear First Strike

    On January 29 [2007] US Army Brigadier General Patrick J. O`Reilly, Deputy Director of the Pentagon`s Missile Defense Agency, announced US plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile defense elements in Europe by 2011, which the Pentagon claims is aimed at protecting American and NATO installations from enemy threats coming from the Middle East, not Russia ...

    Oops. Better send that press release back to the Pentagon's Office of Deception Propaganda for rewrite. The Iran missile threat to NATO installations in Poland somehow isn't quite convincing. Why not ask long-time NATO member Turkey if the US can place its missile shield there, far closer to Iran? Or maybe Kuwait? Or Israel?

    US policy since 1999 has called for building some form of active missile defense despite the end of the Cold War threat from Soviet ICBM or other missile launch. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) says so ...

    For the Pentagon and the US policy establishment, regardless of political party, the Cold War with Russia never ended. It merely continued in disguised form. This has been the case with Presidents G.H.W. Bush, William Clinton and with George W. Bush.

    Missile defense sounded plausible if the United States were vulnerable to attack by a tiny band of dedicated Islamic terrorists able to commandeer a Boeing aircraft with boxcutters. The only problem is missile defense is not aimed at rogue terrorists like Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, or states like North Korea or Iran.

    From them the threat of a devastating nuclear strike on the territory of the United States is non-existent. The US Navy and Air Force bomber fleet today stands in full preparation to bomb, even nuke Iran back to the stone age only over suspicions she is trying to develop independent nuclear weapon technology. States like Iran have no capability to render America defenceless, without risking nuclear annihilation many times over.

    Missile defense came out of the 1980's when Ronald Reagan proposed developing a system of satellites in space and radar bases around the globe, listening stations and interceptor missiles , to monitor and shoot down nuclear missiles before they hit their intended target.

    It was dubbed Star Wars by its critics, but the Pentagon officially has spent more than $130 billion on such a system since 1983. George W. Bush increased that significantly beginning 2002, to $11 billion a year, double the level during the Clinton years. And another $53 billion for the following five years has been budgeted.

    Washington's obsession with Nuclear Primacy

    What Washington did not say, but Putin has now alluded to in Munich, is that the US missile defense is not at all defensive. It is offensive, and how.

    The possibility of providing a powerful state, one with the world's most awesome military machinery, a shield to protect it from limited attack, is aimed directly at Russia, the only other nuclear power with anywhere the capacity to launch a credible nuclear counterpunch.

    Were the United States able to effectively shield itself from a potential Russian response to a US nuclear First Strike, the US would be able simply to dictate to the entire world on its terms, not only to Russia. That would be what military people term Nuclear Primacy. That is the real meaning of Putin's unusual speech. He isn't paranoid. He's being starkly realistic.

    Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, it's now clear that the US Government has never for a moment stopped its pursuit of Nuclear Primacy. For Washington and the US elites, the Cold War never ended. They just forgot to tell us all.

    The quest for global control of oil and energy pipelines, the quest to establish its military bases across Eurasia, its attempt to modernize and upgrade its nuclear submarine fleet, its Strategic B -52 bomber command, all make sense only when seen through the perspective of the relentless pursuit of US Nuclear Primacy.

    The Bush Administration unilaterally abrogated the US-Russian ABM Treaty in December 2001. It's in a race to complete a global network of missile defense as the key to US nuclear primacy. With even a primitive missile defense shield, the US could attack Russian missile silos and submarine fleets with no fear of effective retaliation, as the few remaining Russian nuclear missiles would be unable to launch a convincing response enough to deter a US First Strike.

    The ability of both sides -- the Warsaw Pact and NATO -- during the Cold War, to mutually annihilate one another, led to a nuclear stalemate dubbed by military strategists, MAD -- mutual assured destruction. It was scary but in a bizarre sense, more stable that what we have today with a unilateral US pursuit of nuclear primacy ...

    Now, the US pursues the possibility of nuclear war as `thinkable.' That's really mad.

    The first nation with a nuclear missile shield would de facto have `first strike ability.' Quite correctly, Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, Director of the US Air Force missile defense program, recently called missile defense, `the missing link to a First Strike.' ...

    The Rumsfeld missile defense program is strongly opposed within the military command. On March 26, 2004 no less than 49 US generals and admirals signed an Open Letter to the President, appealing for missile defense postponement.

    As they noted, `US technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any state would dare to attack the US or allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking annihilation from a devastating US retaliatory strike.'

    The 49 generals and admirals, including Admiral William J. Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, went on to argue to the President, `As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction. We agree.

    We therefore recommend, as the militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD (Ground-based Missile Defense) system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials, and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States.'

    What the seasoned military veterans did not say was that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and company had quite another agenda than rogue terror threats. They were after Full Spectrum Dominance, the New World Order, and the elimination, for once and all, of Russia as a potential rival for power ...

    If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.'

    This is the real agenda in Washington's Eurasian Great Game. Naturally, to state so openly would risk tipping Washington's hand before the noose had been irreversibly tightened around Moscow's metaphorical neck ...

    Global Strike: Pentagon Conplan 8022

    The march towards possible nuclear catastrophe by intent or by miscalculation, as a consequence of the bold new Washington policy, took on significant new gravity in June 2004, only weeks after the 49 generals and admirals took the highly unusual step of writing to their President.

    That June, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved a Top Secret order for the Armed Forces of the United States to implement something called Conplan 8022, `which provides the President a prompt, global strike capability.'

    The term, Conplan, is Pentagon shorthand for Contingency Plan. What `contingencies' are Pentagon planners preparing for? A pre-emptive conventional strike against tiny North Korea or even Iran? Or a full-force pre-emptive nuclear assault on the last formidable nuclear power not under the thumb of the US' Full Spectrum Dominance-- Russia?

    The two words, `global strike', are also notable. It's Pentagon-speak to describe a specific pre-emptive attack which, for the first time since the earliest Cold War days, includes a nuclear option, counter to the traditional US military notion of nuclear weapons being only used in defense to deter attack.

    Conplan 8022, as has been noted by some, is unlike traditional Pentagon war plans which have been essentially defensive responses to invasion or attack ...

    The new missile defense expansion to Poland and Czech Republic is better understood from the point of the remarkable expansion of NATO since 1991. As Putin noted, `NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders ...'

    Today, NATO member states include not only the Cold War core in Western Europe, commanded by an American. NATO also includes former Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union states Poland, Latvia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia, formerly of Yugoslavia.

    Candidates to join include the Republic of Georgia, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia. Ukraine's President, Victor Yushchenko, has tried aggressively to bring Ukraine into NATO. This is a clear message to Moscow, not surprisingly, one they don't seem to welcome with open arms.

    New NATO structures have also been formed while old ones were abolished: The NATO Response Force (NRF) was launched at the 2002 Prague Summit. In 2003, just after the fall of Baghdad, a major restructuring of the NATO military commands began. The Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic was abolished. A new command, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), was established in Norfolk, Virginia. ACT is responsible for driving `transformation' in NATO ...

    The Middle East ... is being militarized with a permanent network of US bases from Qatar to Iraq and beyond.

    On February 15 [2007], the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved a draft, the Orwellian-named NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 reaffirming US backing for the further enlargement of NATO, including support for Ukraine to join along with Georgia.

    From the Russian point of view, NATO's eastward expansion since the end of the cold war has been in clear breach of an agreement between then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George H.W. Bush which allowed for a peaceful unification of Germany. NATO's expansion policy is seen as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia.

    New bases to guard `democracy'?

    An almost unnoticed consequence of Washington's policy since the bombing of Serbia in 1999, has been establishment of an extraordinary network of new US military bases, bases in parts of the world where it seems little justified as a US defensive precaution, given the threat, huge taxpayer expense, let alone other global military commitments.

    In June 1999, following the bombing of Yugoslavia, US forces began construction of Camp Bondsteel, at the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. It was the lynchpin in what was to be a new global network of US bases.

    Bondsteel put US air power within easy striking distance of the oil-rich Middle East and Caspian Sea, as well as Russia ...

    Before the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the Washington Post matter-of-factly noted, `With the Middle-East increasingly fragile, we will need bases and fly-over rights in the Balkans to protect Caspian Sea oil.'

    Camp Bondsteel was but the first of a vast chain of US bases that have been built during this decade. The US military went on to build military bases in Hungary, Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia, in addition to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, then still legally part of Yugoslavia.

    One of the most important and least mentioned new US bases was in Bulgaria, a former Soviet satellite and now new NATO member. In a conflict -- and in Pentagon-speak there are only `conflicts,' no longer wars, which involved issues of asking the US Congress to declare them officially, and provide just reason -- the military would use Bezmer [Bulgaria] to `surge' men and materiel toward the front lines. Where? In Russia?

    The US has been building its bases in Afghanistan. It built three major US bases in the wake of its occupation of Afghanistan in winter of 2001, at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US' main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was built some 100 kilometers from the border with Iran.

    Afghanistan had historically been the heart of the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British strategy was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby gaining a warm water port for its navy and threatening Britain's imperial crown jewel, India.

    Afghanistan is also seen by Pentagon planners as highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military might could directly threaten Russia and China as well as Iran and other oil-rich Middle East lands. Little had changed in that respect over more than a century of wars.

    Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location, straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, had been in negotiations, together with Cheney's Halliburton and with Enron, for exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron's huge natural gas power plant at Dabhol near Mumbai.

    At that same time, the Pentagon came to an agreement with the government of Kyrgystan in Central Asia, to build a strategically important base there, Manas Air Base at Bishkek's international airport. Manas is not only near to Afghanistan; it is also in easy striking distance to Caspian Sea oil and gas, as well as to the borders of both China and Russia.

    As part of the price of accepting him as a US ally in the War on Terror rather than a foe, Washington extracted an agreement from Pakistan's military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, to allow the airport at Jacobabad, about 400 km north of Karachi, to be used by the US Air Force and NATO `to support their campaign in Afghanistan.' Two other US bases were built at Dalbandin and Pasni.

    This all is merely a small part of the vast web of US-controlled military bases Washington has been building globally since the so-called end of the Cold War ...

    That's the real significance of what Vladimir Putin said in Munich. He told the world what it did not want to hear: The American `Emperor's New Clothes did not exist. The Emperor was clothed in naked pursuit of global military control ...

    Nuclear primacy is an aggressive offensive policy. It means that one superpower, USA, would have the possibility to launch a full nuclear First Strike at Russia's nuclear sites and destroy enough targets in the first blow, that Russia would be crippled from making any effective retaliation.

    With no credible threat of retaliation, Russia had no credible nuclear deterrent. It was at the mercy of the supreme power. Never before in history had the prospect of such ultimate power in the hands of one single nation seemed so near at hand.

    This stealthy move by the Pentagon for Nuclear Primacy has, up until now, been carried out in utmost secrecy, disguised amid rhetoric of a USA-Russia `Partnership for Peace.' ...

    While the rest of the world was still in shock over the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration unilaterally moved to rip up its earlier treaty obligations with Russia to not build an anti-missile defense.

    On December 13, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States Government was unilaterally abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and committing $8 billion for the 2002 Budget to build a National Missile Defense system. It was pushed through Congress, promoted as a move to protect US territory from rogue terror attacks, from states including North Korea or Iraq.

    The rogue argument was a fraud, a plausible cover story designed to sneak the policy reversal through without debate, in the wake of the September 11 shock.

    The repeal of the ABM Treaty was little understood outside qualified military circles. In fact, it represented the most dangerous step by the United States towards nuclear war since the 1950's. Washington is going at a fast pace to the goal of total nuclear superiority globally, Nuclear Primacy ...

    No one has ever presented credible evidence that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other organization on the US State Department's Terrorist Organization Black List possessed nuclear missiles in hardened underground silos. Aside from the US and perhaps Israel, only Russia and to a far smaller degree, China, have these in any number ...

    Conplan 8022 again put US Air Force long-range B-52 and other bombers on `Alert' status. The Commander of the 8th Air Force stated at the time, that his nuclear bombers were `essentially on alert to plan and execute Global Strikes' on behalf of the US Strategic Command or STRATCOM, based in Omaha, Nebraska.

    Conplan 8022 included not only long-range nuclear and conventional weapons launched from the US, but also nuclear and other bombs deployed in Europe, Japan and other sites. It gave the US what the Pentagon termed Global Strike, the ability to hit any point on the earth or sky with devastating force, nuclear as well as conventional ...

    As some more sober minds argued, were Russia and China to respond to these US moves with even minimal self-protection measures, the risks of a global nuclear conflagration by miscalculation would climb to levels far beyond any seen even during the Cuba Missile Crisis or the danger days of the Cold War.

    Mackinder's Nightmare

    In a few brief years Washington has managed to create the nightmare of Britain's father of geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, the horror scenario feared by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and other Cold War veterans of US foreign policy who have studied and understood the power calculus of Mackinder.

    The vast resources-rich and population-rich Eurasian Heartland and landmass is building economic and military ties with one another for the first time in history, ties whose driving force is the increasingly aggressive Washington role in the world.

    The driver of the emerging Eurasian geopolitical cooperation is obvious. China, with the world's largest population and an economy expanding at double digits, urgently needs secure alliance partners who could secure her energy security.

    Russia, an energy goliath, needs secure trade outlets independent of Washington control to develop and rebuild its tattered economy. These complimentary needs form the seed crystal of what Washington and US strategists define as a new Cold War, this one over energy, over oil and natural gas above all. Military might is the currency this time as in the earlier Cold War.

    By 2006 Moscow and Beijing had clearly decided to upgrade their cooperation with their Eurasian neighbors. They both agreed to turn to a moribund loose organization that they had co-founded in 2001, in the wake of the 1998 Asia crisis, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO.

    The SCO had highly significant members, geopolitically seen. SCO included oil-rich Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as well as China and Russia. By 2006 Beijing and Moscow began to view the SCO as a nascent counterweight to increasingly arbitrary American power politics. The organization was discussing projects of energy cooperation and even military mutual defense.

    The pressures of an increasingly desperate US foreign policy are forcing an unlikely `coalition of the unwilling' across Eurasia. The potentials of such Eurasian cooperation between China, Kazakhstan, Iran are real enough and obvious. The missing link, however, is the military security that could make it invulnerable or nearly, to the sabre-rattling from Washington and NATO. Only one power on the face of the earth has the nuclear and military base and know-how able to provide that -- Vladimir Putin's Russia.

    The Russian Bear sharpens its nuclear teeth

    With NATO troops creeping up to Russia's borders on all sides, US nuclear B-52s and SSBN submarines being deployed to strategic sites on Russia's perimeter, Washington extending its new missile shield from Greenland to the UK, to Australia, Japan and now even Poland and the Czech Republic, it should be no surprise that the Russian Government is responding ...

    In December 2006, Putin told Russian journalists that deployment of the new Russian mobile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile system was crucial for Russia's national security. Without naming the obvious US threat, he declared, `Maintaining a strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems he possesses.'

    It was unmistakable whom he had in mind, and it wasn't the Al Qaeda cave-dwellers of Tora Bora ...

    The planned scale of the United States' deployment of a missile defense system is so considerable that the fear that it could have a negative effect on the parameters of Russia's nuclear deterrence potential is quite justified.' Put simply, he referred to the now open US quest for Full Spectrum Dominance -- Nuclear Primacy.

    A new Armageddon is in the making ...

    The new Armageddon is not exactly the Armageddon which George Bush's Christian fanatics pray for as they dream of their Rapture. It is an Armageddon in which Russia and the United States would irradiate the planet and, perhaps, end human civilization in the process.

    Ironically, oil, in the context of Washington's bungled [not bungled from the viewpoint of the Oil Gang who are making money hand over fist] Iraq war and soaring world oil prices after 2003, has enabled Russia to begin the arduous job of rebuilding its collapsed economy and its military capacities ...

    Bush's America is a hollowed-out debt-ridden economy engaged on using its last card, its vast military power to prop up the dollar and its role as world sole Superpower ...''


    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE by F. William Engdahl, June 3, 2006

    ``US Outflanked in Eurasia Energy Politics

    The United States' global energy-control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed "democracy" by Washington. But while it is preoccupied with implanting democracy in the Middle East, the United States is quietly being outflanked in the rush to secure and control major energy sources of the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.

    The quest for energy control has informed Washington's support for high-risk "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in West Africa, as well as in Sudan, source of 7% of China's oil imports. It lies behind US policy vis-a-vis President Hugo Chavez' Venezuela and President Evo Morales' Bolivia.

    In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance has shown signs of producing just the opposite: a kind of "coalition of the unwilling", states that increasingly see no other prospect, despite traditional animosities, but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control the future security of their energy ...

    The significance of taking aim simultaneously at both Russia and China, the two Eurasian giants, the one the largest investor in US Treasury bonds, the other the world's second-most-developed military nuclear power, reflects the realization in Washington that all may not be as seamless in the quest for global domination as originally promised by various strategists in and around the administration of President George W Bush.

    Next Thursday, member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by China and Russia, will reportedly invite Iran, currently an observer, into full membership ...

    Russia's state-owned natural-gas transport company, Transneft, has consolidated its pipeline control to become the sole exporter of Russian natural gas. Russia has by far the world's largest natural-gas reserves and Iran the second-largest. With Iran inside, the SCO would control the vast majority of the world's natural-gas reserves, as well as a significant portion of its oil reserves, not to mention the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow corridor for a majority of Persian Gulf oil-tanker shipment to Japan and the West.

    Late last month Russia and Algeria, the two largest gas suppliers to Europe, agreed to increase energy cooperation. Algeria has given Russian companies exclusive access to Algerian oil and gas fields, and Gazprom and Sonatrach will cooperate in delivery to France. Putin has canceled Algeria's US$4.7 billion debt to Russia and, for its part, Algeria will buy $7.5 billion worth of Russian advanced jet fighters, air defense systems and other weapons.

    On May 26 [2006] Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov also announced that his country would definitely supply Iran with sophisticated Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missiles, reportedly as a prelude to supplying even more sophisticated weapons ...

    China energy geopolitics also in high gear For its part, Beijing is also moving to "secure energy at the sources". China's booming economy, with 10% growth, requires massive natural resources. China became a net importer of oil in 1993. By 2045, China will depend on imported oil for 45% of its energy needs.

    On May 26 [2006], crude oil began to flow into China through a newly completed pipeline from Atasu, Kazakhstan, to the Alataw Pass in China's far-western region of Xinjiang, a 1,000-kilometer route announced only last year. It marked the first time oil is being pumped directly into China.

    Kazakhstan is also a member of the SCO, but had been regarded by Washington since the collapse of the Soviet Union as in its sphere of influence, with ChevronTexaco, Rice's former oil company, the major oil developer ...

    Beijing and Moscow are also integrating their electricity grids. Late last month the China State Grid Corp announced plans to increase imports of Russian electricity fivefold by 2010.

    In its relentless quest to secure future oil supplies "at the source", China has also moved into traditional US, British and French oil domains in Africa. In addition to being the major developer of Sudan's oil pipeline, which ships some 7% of total China oil imports , Beijing has been more than active in West Africa, the source of vast fields of highly prized low-sulfur oil.

    Since the creation of the China-Africa Forum in 2000, China has scrapped tariffs on 190 imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and canceled $1.2 billion in debt.

    Indicative of the way China is doing an end-run around the Western-controlled International Monetary Fund among African states, China's Export-Import Bank recently gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola.

    In return, the Luanda government gave China a stake in oil exploration in shallow waters off the coast. The loan is to be used for infrastructure projects.

    In contrast, US interest in war-torn Angola has rarely gone beyond the well-fortified oil enclave of Cabinda, which ExxonMobil along with Shell Oil have dominated until recently. That is apparently about to change with the growing Chinese interest.

    Chinese infrastructure projects under way in Angola include railways, roads, a fiber-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5,000 units of housing developments. A new airport with direct flights from Luanda to Beijing is also planned.

    Indirectly, through its support of the Sudanese government, China is also a contender in a high-stakes game of potential regime change in neighboring, oil-rich Chad. This year, World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz was forced to back down from plans to cut off World Bank aid because of the threat of an oil-export cutoff by Chad. ExxonMobil is currently the major oil company active in Chad. But Sudan backs Chadian rebels, who were only prevented from toppling the notoriously corrupt and unpopular regime of President Idriss Deby by the 1,500 French soldiers propping up the regime. Washington has joined with Paris in backing Deby.

    Sudan has involved Chinese, rather than Western, corporations in exploiting its oil fields, largely as a result of misconceived US sanctions imposed in 1997 ...

    The mainstream US foreign-policy organization, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], has also recently weighed in on the question of Chinese energy pursuits. In a recent report, the CFR accuses the Bush administration of lacking any comprehensive long-term strategy for Africa ...''


    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE by F. William Engdahl, 28 January 2006

    [War in Iran]

    In the past weeks rumors have circulated widely amid growing tensions around a possible bombing strike against Iran. Among the reports -- in violation of all precedent since the 1945 USA bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- is discussion of possible deployment of nuclear bombs by either the United States or Israel, to destroy or render useless the deep underground Iranian nuclear facilities.

    The possibility of war against Iran presents a geo-strategic and geopolitical problem of far more complexity than did the bombing and occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proven complicated enough for the United States. Below we try to identify some of the main motives of the main actors in the new drama and the outlook for possible war.

    The dramatis personae include the Bush Administration, most especially the Cheney-led neo-conservative hawks in control now of not only the Pentagon, but also the CIA, the UN Ambassadorship and a growing part of the State Department planning bureaucracy under Condi Rice ...

    [To get some idea of what the CIA is doing, see for "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil," by Michael C. Ruppert; On the web see

    Ruppert understands the mentality of the CIA because he shares the CIA belief in 'peak oil' -- Quoting from p. 49 of "Crossing the Rubicon": "... the Agency was already well aware of Peak Oil in the mid 1970's. [The 1975 film] "Three Days of The Condor" ... said then what few in the post-9/11 world would have the courage to say now:

    Turner (Robert Redford): Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?

    Higgins (Cliff Robertson): Are you crazy? ...

    Turner: Do we have plans? ...

    Higgins: What do you think people are gonna want us to do then?

    Turner: Ask them.

    Higgins: Not now -- then. Ask them when they're running out ... They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them."]

    Iran is especially positioned through geological fortune to possess large quantities of uranium from mines in Yazd Province, permitting Iran to be self-sufficient in fuel and not having to rely on Russian fuel or any other foreign imports for that matter ...

    `Unmaking' weapons grade uranium today is also a geopolitically interesting process, not irrelevant to the current dispute over Iran. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, under agreements designed to insure that the Soviet nuclear arsenal would be converted to peaceful uses, military weapons uranium came on to the civilian market under a US-Russian agreement.

    Today more than half of all the uranium used for electricity in the USA nuclear power plants comes from Russian military stockpiles. Currently 20% of all electricity produced in the US is nuclear generated meaning that Russian uranium fuels some 10% of all US electricity ...

    What seems clear is that Iran is defiantly going ahead with completion of an independent nuclear capability and insists it is abiding by all rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA.

    Iran also apparently feels well prepared to sit out any economic sanctions. The country is the second largest OPEC oil producer (4.1 million barrels / day in 2005) next to Saudi Arabia (9.1 million bpd). It is fourth largest in the world just under the total oil production of the USA (4.9 million bpd). Russia with 9.5 million bpd production in 2005 takes claim to being the world's largest oil-producing country.

    Iran has also accumulated a strong cash position from the recent high oil price, earning some $45 billion in oil revenue in 2005, double the average for 2001-2003. This gives it a war chest cushion against external sanctions and the possibility to live for months with cutting its oil export all or partly ...

    The Russian factor in Iran

    The role of Putin's Russia in the unfolding Iran showdown is central. In geopolitical terms, one must not forget that Russia is the ultimate `prize' or endgame in the more than decade long US strategy of controlling Eurasia and preventing any possible rival from emerging to challenge US hegemony.

    Russian engineers and technical advisers are in Iran constructing the Bushehr nuclear plant, at least 300 Russian technicians. Iran has been a strategic cooperation partner of the Putin government in terms of opposing US-UK designs for control of Caspian oil. Iran has been a major purchaser of Russian military hardware since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in addition to buying Russian nuclear technology and expertise.

    In March 2005 Iran-Russian relations took a qualitative shift closer. That month Moscow agreed to the sale of a `defensive' missile system to Tehran, worth up to $7 billion-worth of future defense contracts. In 2000 Putin had announced Russia would no longer continue to abide by a secret US-Russia agreement to ban Russian weapons sales to Iran that the government of Boris Yeltsin had concluded. Since then, Russian-Iranian relations have become more entwined to put it mildly.

    Moscow currently says it is in talks with Iran to build five to seven additional nuclear power reactors on the Bushehr site after completion of the present reactor ...

    Significantly, on January 23 [2006], the Russian daily, Kommersant reported that Armenia, sandwiched between Iran and Georgia, had agreed to sell 45% control of its Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia's Gazprom. The Russian daily added, `If Russia takes over this [Iran-Armenia] pipeline, Russia will be able to control transit of Iranian gas to Georgia, Ukraine and Europe.'

    That would be a major blow to the series of Washington operations to insert US-friendly pro-NATO governments in Georgia as well as Ukraine. It would also bind Iran and Russian energy relations ...

    Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in a January 18 discussion with the daily, Nezavisimaya gazeta, stated, `It is not profitable for Russia to impose sanctions on Iran, since we just recently signed an agreement to sell them nearly $1 billion worth of medium-range anti-aircraft weapons ...

    China, in its increasingly urgent search for secure long-term energy supplies, especially oil and gas, has developed major economic ties with Iran ...

    The two countries signed a preliminary agreement worth potentially $70 billion to $100 billion. Under the terms, China will purchase Iranian oil and gas and help develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi border. That same year, China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied natural gas from Iran over a quarter-century.

    Iran's Oil Minister stated at the time, `Japan is our number one energy importer for historical reasons . . . but we would like to give preference to exports to China.' In return China has become a major exporter of manufactured goods to Iran, including computer systems, household appliances and cars.

    In addition to selling Iran its computers and home appliances, Beijing has been one of the largest suppliers of military technology to Teheran since the 1980's. Chinese arms trade has involved conventional, missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons. Outside Pakistan and North Korea, China's arms trade with Iran has been more comprehensive and sustained than that with any other country.

    China has sold thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles, and artillery pieces, several hundred surface-to-air, air-to-air, cruise, and ballistic missiles as well as thousands of antitank missiles, more than a hundred fighter aircraft, and dozens of small warships. In addition, it is widely believed that China has assisted Iran in the development of its ballistic and cruise missile production capability, and has provided Iran with technologies and assistance in the development of its clandestine chemical and nuclear weapons programs ...

    CONPLAN 8022

    In January 2003 President Bush signed a classified Presidential Directive, CONPLAN 8022-02. Conplan 8022 is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits `no ground troops.' It was specifically drafted to deal with imminent' threats from states such as North Korea or Iran.

    Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent's response -- cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications, hacking computer networks.

    Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating `mini' nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran's ...''


    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE from Financial Sense, 7-25-07

    by F. William Engdahl

    [The Ethanol Scam]

    That bowl of Kellogg's Cornflakes on the breakfast table, or the portion of pasta or corn tortillas, cheese or meat on the table is going to rise in price over the coming months as sure as the sun rises in the East ...

    The Bush Administration is making a major public relations push to convince the world it has turned into a "better steward of the environment." The problem is that many have fallen for the hype.

    The center of his program, announced in his January State of the Union Address is called '20 in 10', cutting US gasoline use 20% by 2010. The official reason is to "reduce dependency on imported oil," as well as cutting unwanted "greenhouse gas" emissions. That isn't the case, but it makes good PR.

    Repeat it often enough and maybe most people will believe it. Maybe they won't realize their taxpayer subsidies to grow ethanol corn instead of feed corn are also driving the price of their daily bread through the roof ...

    Big oil is also driving the [ethanol] bandwagon. Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University and other scientists claim that net energy output from bio-ethanol fuel is less than the fossil fuel energy used to produce the ethanol [to say nothing of the top soil loss] ...

    F. William Engdahl is author of the book, `A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order ...'''


    [Nymex oil futures peaked at an intraday high of $78.40 on July 14 [2006] but averaged $66.25 for the year, compared with $56.70 in 2005 and $41.47 in 2004 ...


    NEWS ARTICLE from The Plain Dealer, 10-17-07, by John Wilen, Associated Press

    ``NEW YORK -- Oil futures rallied to a new intraday record above $88 a barrel on Tuesday [10-16-07] amid concerns about disruptions to Middle Eastern crude supplies ... Traders are concerned that a Turkish incursion into Iraq in search of Kurdish rebels could disrupt crude supplies from northern Iraq ...

    Light, sweet crude for November delivery rose $1.48 to settle at a record $87.61 a barrel. Earlier, prices rose as high as $88.20, a trading record ...''


    NEWS ARTICLE from The Plain Dealer, 10-19-07,

    by John Wilen, Associated Press

    ``NEW YORK -- Oil prices surpassed $90 a barrel for the first time Thursday [10-18-07] ... Light, sweet crude for November delivery hit $90.02 ... Thursday was the fifth day in a row crude prices have set new records ...''

    {The Oil Gang goes laughing to the bank.}]

    Top -- Home

    [Is the Oil Gang striking at wind power?]

    By Sabrina Eaton, The Plain Dealer

    November 26, 2014

    Sabrina Eaton is the Northeast Ohio Media Group Washington Correspondent

    Rep. Bob Gibbs caught in crosswind over extending wind power tax credit

    [The Republican House of Representatives does nothing to repeal the oil depletion allowance -- So how many oil companies pay no federal income tax? On top of that, how many receive taxpayer subsidies? Facing an oil glut, is the Oil Gang's strategy to diminish other sources of energy? Are the Saudis pushing down the price of oil to make alternative energy non-competitive?]

    The Koch brothers funded Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity, is running ads that urge Rep. Bob Gibbs to vote against wind industry tax breaks.

    WASHINGTON, D. C. -- A Tea Party organization that's funded by groups linked to the oil industry-affiliated Koch Brothers is pressuring three Ohio GOP Congress members to oppose extending a tax credit for wind power projects.

    Americans for Prosperity announced this week that it's placing print ads that urge congress members Bob Gibbs of Holmes County, Bill Johnson of Marietta and Mike Turner of the Dayton area to vote against the tax credit, calling it a "handout" ...

    Earlier this month, the group announced it would target 25 members of Congress in 15 states, including the Ohio trio, with a $200,000 digital ad buy over the wind measure, which it wants to exclude from a package of tax extenders that Congress is expected to consider in December's lame-duck session ...

    The group's Ohio director, Eli Miller, [said] that despite 20 years of taxpayer subsidies, wind energy has yet to show independence and accounts for less than 3% of electricity production.

    American Wind Energy Association spokesman David Ward says the credit attacked by Americans for Prosperity provides "predictable, stable, pro-growth tax policy vital for new U.S. wind farms that harvest clean, affordable and homegrown wind energy," and said his group is optimistic it will be renewed this year.

    He said that there's enough wind power online to power 15.5 million U.S. homes, and continuing the credit is vital "if the U.S. wind energy industry is to keep developing more efficient technology and sustaining 73,000 jobs and an average of 17.3 billion a year in private investment into the U.S. economy."

    Ohio has 62 factories that supply the wind power industry, more than any other state, says Ward. He said growing wind farms in Ohio have attracted over $775 million in capital investment to the state.

    A blog post from the wind industry trade group notes that "Americans for Prosperity previously defended tax incentives for the oil industry ? tax incentives that Koch Industries has fought for and profited from. When discussing the PTC the fact that all energy sources receive tax incentives is crucial context for understanding the environment that the wind industry competes in."

    An archived version of Americans for Prosperity website's energy policies advocates abandoning tax subsidies for ethanol and natural gas, but urges retention of policies that benefit the oil industry.

    "Americans for Prosperity opposes any changes in the tax code that target specific industries for tax increases because some people don't like their product or profit," it says ...

    According to a Washington Post tally, more than $44 million of the $140 million that Americans for Prosperity raised during the 2012 election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds ...

    For more on the Koch brothers, see

    For more on "There is no peak oil" See

    Third Millenium -- Top -- Home -- What's New