Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives US in Iraq, Iran

Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: The Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Greenspan’s remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:

“Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. “I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point,” he told the Guardian.

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

“I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” Greenspan said. But,writes Woodward, Greenspan “added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.”

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

There’s every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. “Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected,” he writes — but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.

“An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony — which appears to be the current trend — must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security.”

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or “radical”) control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as “truisms.”)

But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.

The Iraq was “is not about oil” became a mantra among the pro-war crowdin the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling:

Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a “wrong impression.” “I have a deep desire for peace. That’s what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don’t like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody.”

Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, “if Saddam’s primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation,” said: “This cannot be further from the truth. . . . He is a threat to his neighbors. He’s a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind.” She continued: “This is not about oil.”

Colin Powell: “This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations.”

Donald Rumsfeld: “It’s not about oil and it’s not about religion.”

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: “there’s just nothing to it.”

Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: “I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it.”

General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, “It’s not about oil.”

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: “It was not about oil.”

“It’s not about the oil,” the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: “This is not about oil.”

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: “The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil.”

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: “This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security.”

Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: “This is not about oil. That was very clear. . . . This is about America, and America’s position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed.”

And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a “liar” (or at very least a “fool”), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivatedin part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.

What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?

Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil — not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.

More and more people are making the connections — but there’s no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action. Copyright © 2007 Robert Weissman Read other articles by Robert, or visit Robert's website.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Deadbeat said on September 18th, 2007 at 6:28am #

    What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?

    And among those “liars” are Alan Greenspan and war criminal Henry Kissinger

  2. gerald spezio said on September 18th, 2007 at 1:58pm #

    According to Weissman, Israel and the Zionist con artists are not even a tiny part of the equation. Not even worth mentioning.

    Weissman, who are you typing for?

    Get of the pot, Weissman.

  3. Glenn said on September 18th, 2007 at 6:47pm #

    Come on Gerald, lighten up a bit. Just because an essayist doesn’t push your barrow doesn’t make them wrong.

    It is probably true that the conflict in Iraq is of benefit to other lobby groups, but the question you need to ask yourself is “If there was no oil present, would the US armed forces still be fully engaged in conflict there, or have even set foot on Iraqi soil at all?”

    There seem to be very good and persuasive arguments put forward by many people promoting the theory that the conflict in Iraq is PRIMARILY about oil supply, and oil markets. Other motives appear to this (casual) reader to be red herrings.

    Some may gain some comfort from thinking that our leaders are driven by philosophy and idealism, but here in the West, the philosophy we are taught (and many live by) boils down to ‘more for me’. Look for the money flow – there lies the pre-eminant motives.

  4. gerald spezio said on September 19th, 2007 at 6:38am #

    Not in the least, Glenn.

    Of course, oil is a major variable in U.S. policy. Cows eat grass.

    When a so-called credentialed progressive essayist, like Weissman, makes a sound and standard argument for oil as the only variable in a detailed essay, you had better consider that what he leaves out is as important as what he carefully discusses. No other reason to respond to Weissman. Zionist neo-cons are positioned everywhere in our national government and openly preaching for more murder.

    When does the sun shine? It only shines in the daytime.

  5. Eric said on September 19th, 2007 at 6:52am #

    Yes, that would make a nice bumper sticker: “It’s not about oil”. Or what about a ribbon that says “Support our corporati0ns”?

  6. Mike McNiven said on September 20th, 2007 at 6:40pm #

    The same people of Iran who had the full support of the US Left in 1977 — when they were caught between the brutal shah regime and the imperialist designs — is now almost forgotten! US does not have any legitimate reason to occupy even one inch of Iran’s soil ( or any country)! Also, the US Left does not have any legitimate reason to forget the basic human rights of “the same people of Iran”! Please see the suffering which is imposed on the people of Iran by the G-7 installed theocracy. We can, and we should take a stand against the occupation of Iran and the reactionary theocracy at the same time! Actually, we owe them this!

  7. Deadbeat said on September 20th, 2007 at 11:26pm #

    Here’s a perspective by Paul Craig Roberts – War For Oil — NOT!!!

  8. Deadbeat said on September 20th, 2007 at 11:40pm #

    We can, and we should take a stand against the occupation of Iran and the reactionary theocracy at the same time!

    I think there has been too much focus on the “reactionary theocracy” rather than taking a look at the Iranian struggle against Zionism in the region and standing up to U.S. imperialism. Also there has been several report whereby Iran has more progressive policies — especially in the area of birth control — than the U.S. I think that there is a sort of exceptionalism occurring on the left that make some members of the left feel superior when it comes to analyzing Iran.

  9. Mike McNiven said on September 21st, 2007 at 2:09pm #

    May be there is too much sexism in the US? Gender discrimination IS, constitutionally, legal in Iran! Abortion IS illegal in Iran! How can there be a just birth control policy? Half of the population is second class by law! Still, the imperialists do not have the right to do to Iran what they have done to Vietnam or Yugoslavia (Bill Clinton) or Iraq! No doubt about it!
    The Iranian Left is asking us for help as they did thirty years ago! In their own words: