Masters of Defeat: Retreating Empire and Bellicose Bluster

Washington is forced to watch other powers shape events.

Financial Times, August 25, 2008

Everywhere one looks, US imperial policy has suffered major military and diplomatic defeats. With the backing of the Democratic Congress, the Republican White House’s aggressive pursuit of a military approach to empire-building has led to a world-wide decline of US influence, the realignment of former client rulers toward imperial adversaries, the emergence of competing hegemons and loss of crucial sources of strategic raw materials. The defeats and losses have not dampened militaristic policies nor extinguished the drive for empire building. On the contrary, both the White House and the Congressional incumbents have embraced a hardening of military positions, reiterated a confrontational style of politics and an increased reliance on overseas, bellicose posturing to distract the domestic populace from its deteriorating economic conditions. As the economic and political cost of sustaining the empire increases, as the Federal government allocates hundreds of billions to the crises-ridden financial sector and cuts tens of billions in corporate taxes, avoiding collapse and recession, the entire economic burden is borne by the wage and salaried class in the form of declining living standards, while 12 million immigrant workers are subject to savage police state repression.

The overseas failures and domestic crises however have not led to progressive alternatives; the beneficiaries are overseas competitors and the domestic elite. In large part where public opinion majorities have expressed a desire or clamored for progressive alternatives, they have been thwarted by political representatives linked to militarist ideologues and the corporate elites.

Paradoxically the defeats and decline of US military directed empire building has been accompanied by the retreat of the anti-war movements in North America and Western Europe and the sharp decline of political parties and regimes opposing US imperialism in all the advanced capitalist countries. In other words, the defeats suffered by the US Empire have not been products of the Western Left, nor have they led to a ‘peace dividend’ or improved living standards for the working classes or peasants. To the extent that there are beneficiaries, they are found largely among the newly aspiring economic imperial countries, like China, Russia and India, among the oil rich countries of the Middle East, and especially among a broad swath of large agro-mineral export countries like Brazil, South Africa and Iran, which have carved out important niches in their region’s.

The growth and overseas expansion of the new economic empire building countries and their agro-mineral-financial ruling classes (with the possible exception of Venezuela) have greatly benefited a tiny elite, comprising not more than twenty percent of the population. The relative decline of US military imperialism and the rise of new economic imperialist powers have redistributed wealth and market share between countries but not among classes within the ascendant powers. While the militarists-Zionists-financial speculators rule the US Empire, the new billionaire manufacturers, real estate speculators and agro-mineral exporters rule the emerging economic empires.

The second paradox is found in the fact that the political forces militarily defeating the US military-centered empire are not the forces benefiting from the struggle.

While the Iraqi and Afghan resistance has imposed almost a trillion dollar cost on the US Treasury and tied down over 2 million rotating US troops over the past six years, it is the Chinese, Indian, Russian, European, Gulf Oil and financial ruling classes which have reaped the benefits from massive US non-productive expenditures. While the new economic beneficiaries are, in large part, secular, imperial and elitist, the politico-military forces undermining and defeating the US military empire are religious (Islamic), nationalist and mass-based.

The contemporary defeats of US military empire building are not a product of Western, secular, mass leftist movements. Nor do they result in a progressive, egalitarian society. Instead we have fast-growing highly unequal economies, led by ruling classes promoting their own ‘national’ versions of free market/neo-liberal strategies, which maximize profits through economic exploitation of labor, resource extraction and pillage of the environment. Until the mass movements, intellectuals and activists of the West break from their passivity and blind allegiance to the existing major parties, the defeat of US militarism will be a costly burden assumed by the masses of the Third World while the benefits will accrue to the rising new billionaire economic imperialists.

The Geography of Imperial Failures and Retreat

Middle East: Iraq and Iran

The ascendancy of military-directed empire building in the US has once again put into evidence its utter incapability to impose a new imperial order. After six and a half years of war and occupation in Iraq, the US has suffered enormous military casualties and over half a trillion in economic losses, without securing any political or military or natural resource gains. The losses from the war have generated domestic opposition to US military intervention, undermining current and future imperial military capacity. Even the US-designated puppet ruler in Iraq, Al Maliki, has demanded a set date for US withdrawal. US client Afghan President Karzai has called for greater oversight over US military operations which have killed thousands of non-combatants and civilians, thus deepening and extending support for the national resistance which now operates throughout the country.

For those in the US, particularly on the ‘Left’ who mistakenly argued that the invasion of Iraq was a ‘war for oil’ (rather than a war in support of Israeli hegemonic ambitions), Iraq’s signing of a $3 billion dollar oil contract with the China National Petroleum Corporation in late August 20081 demonstrates the contrary, unless one wishes to revise the slogan to ‘US War for Chinese Oil.’ In the 6 years since the US invaded Iraq, US oil companies have still failed to secure major oil deals.

On October 4-5, 2008, Shell, one of the world’s biggest petroleum multinationals and OMV, an Austrian energy corporation will sponsor a conference in Tehran under the auspices of the National Iranian Gas Export Company to promote ‘gas export opportunities and potentials of the Islamic Republic of Iran.’ This conference is simply one more example of the role of major petroleum companies attempting, through peaceful means, to build their overseas holdings (‘economic empire’). The major opposition to this ‘oil for peace’ move on the part of Shell Oil came from the leading Jewish-Zionist promoter of US engaging in Middle East wars for Israel — the Anti-Defamation League, which criticized Big Oil. According to its two principle leaders, Glen Lewy and Abe Foxman, “…these two companies are co-sponsoring a conference with the state-owned energy company of the leading state-sponsor of terrorism and human rights violator. Bu promoting one of Iran’s strategic industries, natural gas, OMV and Shell are hindering the effort of responsible states (sic) and corporations to isolate Iran.”

The conflict between Shell/OMV and a leading American Zionist-Jewish organization highlights the fundamental conflict between economic-centered empire building and military-centered empire building. The fact that Shell and OMV went ahead with the Iranian conference shows that at least some sectors of the oil industry are finally beginning to challenge the stranglehold that Zionist-militarists have over US Middle East policy. After having lost tens of billions of dollars in lucrative oil contracts thanks to Zionist-dictated policies , the oil companies are finally taking the first tentative steps toward formulating a new policy.

By pursuing the Israeli-US Zionist agenda of sequential wars and sanctions against oil-rich Muslim countries, Washington has lost access, control and profits to global economic competitors in a strategic region.

Africa

In the African nation of Somalia Washington opted for military intervention via the proxy Ethiopian dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi to bolster the discredited and defeated pro-US puppet regime of Abdullah Yusuf. After almost 2 years the Ethiopian and the puppet regime only control a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu, while the rest of the country is in the hands of the Somali resistance. According to the Financial Times2, the Ethiopian regime “expressed a desire to curtail its military engagement in Somalia.” The US surrogate has been militarily and politically defeated; the US failed to secure support for its proxy occupation from the African Union. Throughout Africa, China, the EU, Japan, Russia and to a lesser degree India and Brazil all have made inroads in securing joint ventures in oil, raw materials export markets and large-scale, long-term infrastructure investments, while the US backs armed separatists in the Sudan and subsidizes the corrupt Mubarak regime in Egypt for over a billion dollars a year. Not only has the US empire lost out economically to its global competitors, it has suffered a major military-diplomatic defeat in Somalia and severely politically and financially weakened its Ethiopian client.

South Asia

In South Asia, the US strategic puppet ruler, Pakistani dictator Musharraf has been forced to resign — and the weak and divided electoral coalition which has replaced him has not been able to match the military, diplomatic and intelligence support for the US war in Afghanistan which Musharraf provided. The Pakistan-Afghan border is virtually open territory for cross border attacks, recruitment and military supplies by Afghan resistance organizations. The empire’s loss of Musharraf further undermines US efforts to impose an outpost in Afghanistan.

Through frequent ground and air attacks on Pakistan regions bordering Afghanistan, the US-NATO ‘coalition’ has multiplied, deepened and made massive civilian political and armed opposition throughout the country. The ‘election’ of the US client and convicted warlord and thug, Asif Ali Zadari, as President of Pakistan, will not in anyway contribute to the recovery of US influence outside of very limited elite political and military circles. Washington’s pursuit and extension of military imperialism from Afghanistan to Pakistan has led to even more severe political defeat among a much wider population in South Asia.

Top NATO generals and officials have recognized that the ‘Taliban’ has reorganized and extended its influence throughout the country, controlling most throughways to the major cities and even operating in and around the capital Kabul. Repeated US bombing and missile strikes of civilian housing, cultural events and markets have alienated vast numbers of Afghans and led to widespread opposition to US client ruler Karzai. The promises of both US presidential candidates to vastly expand the US occupation forces in Afghanistan upon taking office, will only prolong the war and deepen the weakening of the economic empires and its domestic foundations.

Caucasus

Washington’s attempt to extend its sphere of influence in the Caucasus through a territorial grab by its authoritarian Georgian client, President Mikheil Saakashvili, led instead to a profound defeat of the local satrap’s regional ambitions. The political break and integration with Russia of South Ossetia and Abkhazia represents the end of unrestricted expansion of the US and EU in the region — and a rollback in contested terrain. The rash adventurism and subsequent destruction of the Georgian economy by Saakashvili has provoked widespread internal unrest. Worse still, Georgia, the US, and its Eastern European clients call for ‘sanctions’ against Russia, threatens to undermine Western European strategic energy supply lines, as well as end Moscow’s collaboration with US military policies in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East. If Washington escalates its military and economic threats to Russia, the latter can provide Iran, Syria and other US adversaries with powerful middle range ultra-modern anti-aircraft missiles. Equally important, Russia can dump over $200 billion in US Treasury notes, further weaken the US dollar and set in motion a global run in the currency.

In Georgia, as elsewhere, US military-centered empire building gives priority to a failed marginal land grab by a third rate client over lucrative strategic economic and military relations with one of the world’s global oil and gas powers and a crucial collaborator in its ongoing military operation in the Middle East. While US economic relations with Russia crumble in the wake of its aggressive military encirclement of Moscow — military bases in the Czech Republic, Poland, Georgia, Bulgaria, Rumania — Western European empire builders resist making military threats in favor of harsh rhetoric and ‘dialog’ in order to sustain strategic energy ties.

Middle East: Israel and the Arabs

In the Middle East, the US unconditional backing of Israeli military aggression in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and US backing of weak and ineffective Arab clients has led to a sharp decline in US influence. In Lebanon, since the defeat of the Israeli invasion in 2006, Hezbollah literally rules the southern half of the country — and holds veto power within the national government, reversing US client rule.

In Gaza, US and Israeli military attempts to seize power and oust Hamas via its client Abbas and Dahlen were rounded defeated and the independent nationalist movement led by Hamas consolidated power.

Washington’s effort to regain its influence and improve its image among conservative and moderate Arab rulers by ‘mediating’ a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine in Annapolis in November 2007 was utterly destroyed by Tel Aviv’s open and total repudiation of all the basic conditions set forth by the Bush Administration. Washington has no influence on Israel’s colonial expansion. On the contrary, the US Middle East policy is totally subject to the Israeli state through the Zionist Power Configuration and its control over Congress, Presidential selection, the mass media and major propaganda ‘think tanks’. The Zionists demonstrated their power by even dictating who could or could not even speak at the Democratic National Convention with the unprecedented censoring of former President James Carter because of his humanitarian criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Zionist-Israeli usurpation of US Middle East policy has led to strategic losses of investments, markets, profits and partnerships for the entire multi-national oil and gas industry.

The political fusion of imperialist militarists confronting Russia at the cost of strategic economic relations and Zionist-militarists pursuing Israeli regional power has led to multiple failed military adventures and tremendous global economic losses.

The Western Hemisphere

The application of the militarist strategy as well as the relative decline of economic hegemony has led to strategic defeats and failures in the Western Hemisphere. In late 2001, Washington challenged and threatened to take reprisals against President Chavez for refusing to submit to Bush’s ‘war on terror.’ Chavez at the time informed a bellicose representative of the State Department (Grossman) that, “We don’t fight terror with terror.” Less than 6 months later in April 2003, Washington backed a failed military coup and between December 2002 to February 2003, a failed bosses lockout. The failure of the US militarist strategy devastated Washington’s military and ruling class clients, and radicalized the Chavez Government. As a consequence, the Venezuelan leader proceeded to nationalize oil and petrol sectors and develop strategic ties with countries that compete with or oppose the US Empire, such as, Cuba, Iran, China and Russia. Venezuela signed strategic economic agreements in Latin America with Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua. While Washington poured over $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia, Venezuela signed petrol and gas investment and trade agreements with most of the Central American and Caribbean countries, severely challenging Washington’s influence in the region.

High commodity prices, booming Asian markets, unacceptable US tariffs and subsidies led to the relative independence of Latin America’s ‘national capitalist’ regimes, who embraced ‘neo-liberalism’ without the constraints of the IMF or the dictates of Washington. In these circumstances the US lost most of its leverage — except Colombia’s military threats — to pressure Latin America to isolate Chavez — or even Cuba. Washington’s military strategy led to its self-isolation.

Overseas Consequences of Failed Military Strategies

Isolation in Latin American can not be overcome because Washington’s pursuit of empire via prolonged military aggression — in the rest of the world and in Latin America — can not compete with the profits, wealth, investment and trade opportunities offered to the ruling classes of Latin America by the new markets in Russia, the Middle East, Asia and by oil rich Venezuela.

Washington’s militarist imperial strategy is evident in its dual policies: Prioritizing the spending of $6 billion in military aid to repressive Colombia while sacrificing $10 billion in trade, investments and profits with oil rich Venezuela. Washington has spent over $500 billion in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; billions are spent in war preparations against Iran; over $3 billion annually for Israel’s military; all the time losing hundreds of billions of dollars in trade and investment with Latin America.

The most striking aspect of this historical contrast is that the military spending embedded in military-centered empire building has failed even its minimum goal of gaining political control, military outposts and strategic resources for war. In contrast, global market competitors have secured access and control over strategic economic resources, and signed lucrative political co-operation agreements without costly military commitments.

Domestic Consequences of Failed Military-Driven Empire Building

The cost of military-Zionist driven empire building to the domestic economy has been devastating: Competitiveness has declined, inflation is eroding living standards, employment with stable living wages is disappearing, unemployment and loss of jobs is skyrocketing, the financial system is disconnected from the real economy and on the verge of collapse, home foreclosures are reaching catastrophic levels and taxpayers are being bled to death to bail out the trillion dollar home mortgage debt speculators. Political malaise is widespread. In the midst of system-wide crisis, an emerging police state has taken hold: thousands of legal and undocumented immigrant workers have been seized at their factories and detained in military camps away from their children. Muslim and Arab associations are raided and prosecuted on the bases of paid informers, including hooded Israeli ‘witnesses.’ The federal and local police practice ‘preventative detention’ of activists and journalists prior to the Presidential conventions, seizing protestors before they can exercise their constitutional rights and systematically destroying the cameras and tapes of citizens attempting to document abuses. Failed military imperialism brings in its wake a burgeoning police state — backed by both political parties — in the face of economic crises which threatens the political and social foundations of the empire.

Conclusion

The economic crisis in the run up to the Presidential elections has not led to the emergence of a mass based progressive alternative candidate. Both the Democratic and Republican contenders promise to prolong and extend the imperial wars and submit to unprecedented Israeli-Zionist military dictates with regard to Iran.

Crises and military defeats have not led to a re-thinking of global economic and military commitments. Instead we witness a right-wing radicalization, which seeks to escalate confrontations with China, Russia and Iran. The US draws in its wake the client regimes of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus and Baltic regions to counter Western Europe’s emphasis on ‘economic-centered’ empire building.

The reality of a multi-polarized economic world however undermines US efforts to impose a bipolar military confrontation. China holds $1.2 trillion dollars in US debt. Western Europe, in general, depends on over one-third of its energy for its homes, offices and factories from Russia. Germany relies on Russia for almost 60% of its gas. The economies of Asia: Japan, India, China, Vietnam and South Korea all depend on oil from the Middle East and not on the Middle East war plans of the Israeli-American militarists.

Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Venezuela and Iran are essential to the functioning of the world economy. In the same way that the US-Israel-United Kingdom cannot support their empire on the bases of failed military strategies abroad and economic disaster and police state policies at home.

  1. Financial Times, August 28, 2008. []
  2. August 28, 2008. []

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras’ most recent books are The Politics of Empire: The Us, Israel and the Middle East (2014) and The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counterattack. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu. Read other articles by James, or visit James's website.

14 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Socialism: Next Stage in Political Systems. Socialism will come to USA wether capitalists like it or not !! said on September 13th, 2008 at 9:00pm #

    I was reading last week that because Russia is so spread out and has so few real targets, The U.S. would be the loser in a nuclear war. The U.S. might hit Moscow, ST. Petersburg, and a few other cities.. other than that there is just mostly Forrest with no people.. The U.S. has hundreds of cities, and millions of people that are involved in the war machine.

    After the lights go out and the internet is dead.. Who will be the winner of this war will not be debatable, because truth will be sacrificed, as in all wars.

    The lights will go out and the internet will die, in the first few seconds of WWIII.. Hundres of megatons at 100,000 feet, will wipe out all electricity , and fry the microcircuty of the computers World wide..

    A new dark age will come upon us, with not only the nukes but the latest in Bio,and Chem.. Billions will die.. Just the way the Rothschilds like it… More death.

    And at the end of it all they hand the world over to a bunch of aliens who they have been channeling for hundreds of years. These aliens gave them the power, because the occult is how to communicate with THEM. The Aliens looked at this world and realized that the most ruthless, are the survivors on this planet.. So they picked the Ashkenazi race to be their embassitors.. The Askenazi swiped the religion of Judaism, and turned it into a reason to swipe the M.E Oil, that is soon to be headed to Israel. Israel will be the place where humankind interfaces with The Others.

    We have been taken over by aliens, takes on a whole new meaning when you realize that they are not of this solar system.

    like Si- Fi.

  2. Michael Kenny said on September 14th, 2008 at 5:52am #

    Two small points. I don’t think the Georgian fiasco will in any way limit the EU. Georgian membership is fairly far down the road in any event and by that time, Russia itself, or many of its components, will also be a realistic candidate for EU membership. Politically, the EU is the big winner in Georgia. The US is discredited as an “ally”, US policy in Kosovo is discredited, NATO is discredited as an alliance, Russia has placed the EU in the forefront of the peace process and the typically belligerent US reaction has driven a further wedge between it and Europe, where public opinion is totally hostile to war, whether cold or hot.

    My second point is the sequel to the above. Professor Petras makes a sort of world tour, but mentions the rest of Europe only in passing. However, Europe has been the undoing of the neocons. They knew the US hadn’t the power to do what they wanted on its own but they assumed, wrongly, that Europe was in the their pockets and would just follow the American lead. They were genuinely surprised and shocked when they discovered that they were wrong and then proceeded to make matters worse by launching a campaign of abuse against Europe which, of course, further alienated Europeans, whose opinion of Americans was very low anyway. The US didn’t support Saakashvili because they knew (and the Russians knew) that Europe wouldn’t join them. Saakashvili, led around by the nose by his Israeli extremist handlers, was probably the only leader in Europe who didn’t know that!

  3. Peter said on September 14th, 2008 at 8:18pm #

    I agree with Michael (above). I think the EU’s role in dismantling the imperial system should be absolutely central. It is the region with the most mature democratic institutions and it should lead, not follow. However, it’s almost as if Europe is afraid of challenging the US’ dominance – as if they’re thinking to themselves “yeah, but who’s going to protect us if things get rough?” No doubt, the US political establishment enjoys fanning such fears – it seems that the latest Russian/Georgian adventure is but one attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and the EU, for example. The fact that the negotiations were handled by openly pro-Bush European, Sarkozy, did not help.

  4. Deadbeat said on September 15th, 2008 at 12:30am #

    Where’s Max Shields? I means how can he allow such commentary by Dr. Petras to go unchallenged when he asserts something like this…

    By pursuing the Israeli-US Zionist agenda of sequential wars and sanctions against oil-rich Muslim countries, Washington has lost access, control and profits to global economic competitors in a strategic region.

    This is why the term “imperialism” is meaningless when applied to the Iraq occupation. I’ve never seen an “Imperialist” invasion where Washington lost access, control, profits, and resources. On the other hand it was a great gain for Israel and US. Zionism. And where was the “Left” — diffusing, distorting, and obfuscating.

  5. Max Shields said on September 15th, 2008 at 6:45am #

    Deadbeat, I’ve answered this repeated, and tired point elsewhere, but will briefly offer it here.

    Those bent on seeing the centuries old imperialism of America as a Zionist creation always begin to look at the economic cost/benefits and say how else could the elite brain trust of America be so foolish as to deplete its coffers for an adventure in the Middle East if not for some reason other than imperialism (what about Vietnam, for starters)? Ah, zionism, comes the ready made reply.

    Preditory corporate capitalism is not a purely rational creature. Also, it does not always play the “sure thing” card. In other words, no one likes to lose but lose from time we do. Remember the concentration of wealth continues to flow in the same direction, DB – many, many have become billionaires on this uneconomic war in the ME.

    My argument to Petras and those who follow his line of argument, is that imperialism is not and has never been a purely rational “mind-set”, in fact, within it, allowed to grow and fester as it has in the Western/US brand, it is quite pathological. Pathological behavior defies cost/benefit analysis. Again the rationle is you win some, you lose some. But empires, historically, have been consistent in over-reach and self-created demise. The “seeds of destruction” lie within imperialism itself.

    Deadbeat, when I present this historical (rather than your ahistorical) argument, the response (more specifically, yours) is that I’m obscuring the real cause – zionism. That kind of pseudo-argument is a non­sequetor and begs the real question of logic. It’s a form of mindless name-calling.

  6. DanE said on September 15th, 2008 at 5:31pm #

    Apologies to all for having said a kind word about Max Shields the other day. When push comes to shove all these Ziofascist snowjob artists turn out the same. No matter what they might have right about this or that secondary issue or question, in the end they are dead wrong about the central issue of our time: what to do about the US Jewish Establishment which now places its role as Israeli 5th Column before its own interests.

    All the silly arguments he raises have been refuted with documentation ad infinitum not only by Dr Petras but also by Grant Smith, the Christisons, Jeff Blankfort and many others including Walt & Mearsheimer.

    But why should the reader believe me? I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, but if you’re at all uncertain about Max & his nonsense, why not check out the 12part analysis published here on DV by Co-editor Kim Peterson and his colleague a few months ago?

    Or maybe just take note that everybody from Obama to the NYT talks about Big Oil like a dog these days, but nobody says shit about Big Jewry. Nobody but Petras, Kim, Deadbeat & a few others. Look at the trouble that flaming radical Jimmy Carter got into for noticing Apartheid in the 1967-conquered Occupied Territories: first time a former Dem Pty Pres of the US has been prevented from addressing the Dem Pty convention. Hehe, guess he must have offended Big Oil, right?

  7. Max Shields said on September 15th, 2008 at 7:09pm #

    dane, I think your rock awaits your return.

  8. Lloyd Rowsey said on September 16th, 2008 at 6:51am #

    I agree with Max Shields and am delighted to sample the comments column at DV and find, right off the bat, his penetrating, succinct, and highly enlightening reporting from Europe.

    That’s “DanE” – Max – not “Dane”.

    :-)

  9. Deadbeat said on September 16th, 2008 at 2:41pm #

    DanE writes…

    All the silly arguments [Max Shields] raises have been refuted with documentation ad infinitum not only by Dr Petras but also by Grant Smith, the Christisons, Jeff Blankfort and many others including Walt & Mearsheimer.

    EXACTLY.

  10. Shabnam said on September 17th, 2008 at 8:43am #

    Professor Petras:
    Thank you for your work informing the international community on Zionism and the influence of its destructive forces on our societies. I agree with you when you write:
    “By pursuing the Israeli-US Zionist agenda of sequential wars and sanctions against oil-rich Muslim countries, Washington has lost access, control and profits to global economic competitors in a strategic region.”
    The US has committed itself to Zionist’s strategic plan, not to allow Iran to have enrichment program for its fuel which is IRAN’S RIGHT. This plan is perused not only by manipulation of American political and military system but also in collusion with Russia where Russia has strengthen her position at the bargaining table due to US economic downfall, engagement in Zionist war and lack of credibility. Shell Company has shown its eagerness to participate in Iran’s oil and gas investment program under ‘cooperation in production’ since the Iranian constitution does not allow a foreign company to have control over the oil wells, yet Shell has not been able to participate despite its eagerness to do so. On the other hand, some people speculate that due to Zionist economic pressure, through economic sanction, which increases the risks involved, therefore, some people think the companies, like Shell, will use the manufactured ‘crisis’ to ask for a better concession through agreements for a longer periods at a bargain prices to maximize profits. Shell Oil Company has started his activities since 1996 in Iran. Shell Company was active during the Shah but stopped due to the Iranian revolution in 1979. Shell has a bad image in the Iranian collective memory. Thus far, Shell has not finalized any agreement with the Iranian government in Iran due to Zionist economic sanction forced by the Zionist puppet George Bush and before him Bill Clinton where both have provided golden opportunities for US adversaries, Russia and China by isolating Iran as the MAIN ENEMY. The collusion between Zionists and Russians has paid high returns for both Israel and Russia against the interest of the United States yet the foolish president, George Bush, does not understand that a weak Iran is not good for the interest of the United States. Iran’s oil minister, Gholam Hossein Nozari, has been losing patience with Shell – and Total of France – over deals to develop phases 11 and 13 of the huge South Pars field, and has given an ultimatum that Shell must commit itself to developing a $10bn gas field soon or risk the project being handed over to a rival. Officials in Iran said negotiations with a number of Asian companies had already started and that they were likely to replace Shell and Total if the two continued to prevaricate. There has already been speculation that Gazprom of Russia is keen to strike a deal, while Sinopec of China has signed a $2bn contract to develop the Yadavaran oilfield due to the Zionist plan of waging wars for ‘regime change.’ Iran does not want to engage in oil and gas project with Russia. Russia has been cooperating with the West against Iran by postponing the completion of the Bushehr reactor for the last 8 years. But if Bush continues his Zionist policy Iran might strike a deal with the US adversary, Russia. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has approved Royal Dutch Shell’s Iraq Gas Master Plan, paving the way for the firm to invest some $3-4 billion in natural gas in the southern part of the country. Shell will establish a joint-venture company with Iraq’s state-owned South Oil Company (SOC) to execute the gathering, treatment, and monetization operation. SOC will hold a 51% majority stake, while Shell will hold 49%. This kind of agreement could have achieved long time ago without waging a Zionist war to kill more than 1.2 million people, majorities are civilian, to force 5 millions Iraqis out of their country as refugees and rape and torture innocent people in Abu Gharib and else where to partition the country to create an ally for Israel against Arabs and Iranians to increase Israel influence and power in the region.
    The oil companies were willing to do the same without a Zionist war, but the gatekeepers insist on ‘No Blood for oil’. The oil companies do not give a damn for ‘regime change’ or Iran’s enrichment program which is LEGAL. Iran’s enrichment program does not concern Americans who are not a Zionist puppet either, such as Gen. William Odem but it is important to Israel and Russia for the same reason, hegemony and expansion of power.
    However, I disagree with you when you write:
    “In Georgia, as elsewhere, US military-centered empire building gives priority to a failed marginal land grab by a third rate client over lucrative strategic economic and military relations with one of the world’s global oil and gas powers and a crucial collaborator in its ongoing military operation in the Middle East.”

    This war most likely came as a result of collusion between Israel and Russia to satisfy each other strategic needs, by sacrificing Georgia and its naive ‘leader’ Saakashvili. They know the US is not in a position to start a war with Russia over tiny Georgia. Having so many Zionist leader in major Western capitals, they are confident that finally the Georgian ‘crisis’ will end with a victory for both Russia and Israel dumping Saakashvili for another ‘leader’ who is acceptable to both Russia and the west. In return Russia will CONTINUE its cooperation with the west against Iran to strengthen Israel position against both Arab and Iranians. Russia like Israel wants a weak Iran and does not want Iran to have an enrichment program which is Iran’s LEGAL RIGHT according to NPT in which Iran is a signatory and ISRAEL IN NOT. Due to Zionist war which has strengthen Russian position against the United States, Russia can demand better concession from the United States for her cooperation on Iran which is her own policy since in Russia the Zionists are not in the driving seat yet despite the fact that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president is from Jewish descent. As you have noticed, Russia never mentions ISRAEL by name in her complain against Georgia but only the United States, which did not have an interest to wage a war against Russia, and Patrick Buchanan called those who are responsible for this pro Zionist policy ‘traitors.’
    According to Spiegel Online International on war in the Caucasus:

    “[T]he mood is shifting against Georgian President Saakashvili. Some Western intelligence reports have undermined Tbilisi’s version of events, and there are now calls on both sides of the Atlantic for an independent investigation.”
    One thing is already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. The NATO experts did not question the Georgian claim that the Russians had provoked them by sending their troops through the Roki Tunnel. But their evaluation of the facts was dominated by skepticism that these were the true reasons for Saakashvili’s actions. Saakashvili, a dictator and naïve ruler of Tbilisi, is following the shift in opinions in the West with growing unease. He is no longer confident in his allies’ support and this case could even be used to threaten him with referral of his case to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague to either silence him or sacrifice him for his trust in Zionist advisors.

  11. Deadbeat said on September 17th, 2008 at 9:09am #

    Max says…
    Deadbeat, when I present this historical (rather than your ahistorical) argument, the response (more specifically, yours) is that I’m obscuring the real cause – zionism. That kind of pseudo-argument is a non­sequetor and begs the real question of logic. It’s a form of mindless name-calling.

    Yeah Max the reason why the U.S. is at war in the Middle East is to take Gulf of Mexico.

  12. Max Shields said on September 17th, 2008 at 9:44am #

    Who says we haven’t been at “war” in Central and South America? I suppose all those years of overt and covert operations (not to mention the actions in South America right now) was to take over the ME.

    As I said, mindless chatter there Deadbeat.

  13. Deadbeat said on September 17th, 2008 at 9:58am #

    So you do believe that the U.S. is at war in the the Middle East to conquer North Dakota and the Gulf of Mexico.

    It’s not history that you need to get a grip on Max. It is your desire to conceal the racist ideology of Zionism. You and Chomsky are two peas in a pod.

  14. Max Shields said on September 17th, 2008 at 10:11am #

    db yea