Obama’s Iraq strategy – “Oil bonus” for Israel

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” – Philip Zelokow, executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 11, 2001.

But being the only nuclear power in the Middle East – it’s not the ‘security’ which Zionist entity is worried about – but its need of plenty of oil and water, which forces it to act like a Zionazi state against its weaker Arab neighbours.

The other day, Barack “Husein” Obama announced that he plans to withdraw most of US occupation forces from Iraq by 2010 – leaving a “small force” of 35,000 behind in Iraq to “advise” Iraqi forces. One may dare to ask the cousin of an African Rabbi – “Why the heck Iraqi forces need so many thousands of adviser and against who he think Iraqi forces could be fighting with – not Islamic Iran – but maybe Israel or Turkey, both American allies.

Well – you may say it’s a coincident that US occupation forces have built three military bases – Helicopter Base, F16 Base near main pumping station) and one West of Jordan – all along the old Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline – or it’s the first stage to fulfil one of Israel’s many wishes – daily shipment of 2.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil through a new enlarged pipeline passing through Israel? Bush’s Zionist administration spent US$2 billion to build the huge US Embassy and fortified Green Zone where most of business is controlled by Israelis.

According to Israel daily Ha\’aretz – both the US and Israel are planning to pump Iraqi oil from northern Iraq to Haifa via Jordan – stating that Israeli prime minister views the pipeline to Haifa as a “bonus” the US could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq (what happened to the three trillion dollar USAID to Tel Aviv since the 1970s?).

After the defeat of Ottomons in WW I – British and French divided its Arab possesions (Sykes-Picot Agreement) into the Gulf States, Palestine, Trans-Jordan (later Jordan) and Iraq under British Mandate while Syria and Lebanon under French Mandate. However, agreement was not in the interest of Lard Rothschild and other oil-vultures for Mosul being under French control. After two years – French premier Georges Clemenceau agreed to trade Mosul in the north for Syria.

The end of Ottomon rule in the Arab region open the way for the British colonialists to exploit oil and gas deposits in the Muslim world. This was confirmed by Sir Maurice Hankey, secretary of British War Cabinet in his letter to the Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that in the case of Persian and Mesopotamian oil, “control of oil supplies becomes a first-class British war aim”. Balfour (a Jew) fathered his notorious ‘Belfour Declaration’ in 1917 – the sole purpose of which was to win the support of Jewish Lobby and financial support for the Allied cause in return for a homeland for western Jews in Muslim-majority Palestine.

In 1931 the Iraqi Petroleum Company built two 12-inch pipelines – one to Haifa and the other to Tripoli (Lebanon), which started pumping in 1935.  In the 1990s, it was shutdown by the US for Syria’s supporting  Saddam Hussain.

Gilles Munier in his February 14, 2006 article wrote:

“The neo conservator project of carving a “Zone of prosperity” in the Middle East financed by Iraqi oil to benefit essentially the Israelis has been swept over. The United States may have an alternative solution though as much uncertain. It boils down to toppling the regime of Bashar Al Assad and setting up a Kurdish State in the north of Iraq………”

Hooman Peimani wrote in Asia Times, April 4, 2003:

“The Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of regime change in Iraq gives some evidence to the contrary. Against this background, the US government’s growing anti-Syrian rhetoric including accusing Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq, may well be the initial stage toward the expansion of war to Syria. If this happene, it could lead to a regime change there to serve various purposes including the cooperation of Syria in future oil export via the Mosul-Haifa pipeline.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s