Month: January 2012

Iraq is projected to become an oil giant of as much geopolitical influence as Saudi Arabia. And the U.S. government and its corporations are at the center of that trend.

Ben Van Heuvelen has a piece at Foreign Policy describing Iraq’s burgeoning “extractive industry” and how they’re on track to become a “swing producer” within five years. A “swing producer” refers to “the ability to drastically increase production on short notice” (Saudi Arabia is currently the world’s only swing producer, and it affords the monarchy unmatched geopolitical power). These projections are not a certainty, but the U.S. and Western oil companies are doing their best.

In 2009, the government started awarding contracts for the country’s largest fields, and the biggest names in oil have signed up. Companies like ExxonMobil and BP have invested billions of dollars, bringing the latest in technology and engineering expertise. Production has rebounded from just over 1 million barrels per day after the invasion to nearly 3 million today. Baghdad’s 11 international oil contracts promise to deliver a total of more than 13 million barrels per day within seven years — a figure that would make Iraq the largest oil producer, ever.

Interestingly, oil corporations are relying heavily on the undemocratic centralization of political power in a quasi-dictator like Nouri al-Maliki in order to develop Iraq’s oil. Maliki’s regime has resorted to unilaterally approving contracts with oil companies like Exxon and BP, circumventing parliament’s approval in violation of Iraqi law. “Maliki’s Shiite-majority allies have backed centralized control of oil,” Van Heuvelen writes, “while parties representing the minority Kurds and Sunnis say local governments should have more authority. No bill has yet survived parliament.”

That volatility, however, hasn’t dissuaded oil multinationals — there’s simply too much oil under the country’s soil. So, many companies, from BP to ExxonMobil to Shell to Lukoil, have been willing to invest billions of dollars without the stability of a modern oil law. Companies have mitigated their risks by negotiating contracts that rely on international arbitration to settle major disputes, rather than Iraqi courts. But the overarching reason companies can operate with some confidence is that — in the laissez-faire political economy of Iraqi oil — their power rivals that of the divided Iraqi state.

It’s a pet peeve of mine when people use the term “laissez-faire” pejoratively to describe a process that is exactly not “laissez-faire.” But his point is taken: Because of a weakened parliament, sectarian divisions, and a strong-man Iraqi regime eager to use oil production to boost its geopolitical sway, those Western corporations possess inordinate command.

This is all happening alongside political developments that made news this week regarding the Obama administration’s attempts to negotiate a new defense agreement with the Maliki regime that may include an expanded number of U.S. troops based in Iraq. That’s right, after Obama dishonestly took credit for withdrawing from Iraq, he’s now vying to march right back in, using weapons deals and military training programs as lure.

So as ExxonMobil begins to wield gratuitous power in Iraq, the Obama administration plans to gain increased U.S. influence with money and weapons and troops, all while Maliki consolidates dictatorial power and suppresses democracy at every turn. Perhaps this is what Leon Panetta was referring to when he announced the war in Iraq was “worth the price.“

I wrote today about Obama’s denial that a “huge number of civilian casualties” are resulting from the drone war in Pakistan. There is plenty of evidence of high numbers of civilian casualties from the drone strikes, and I write about and link to much of it in the piece, but I also left something out about how the Washington tallies the dead here.

Micah Zenko:

President Obama said that drones are used against “al-Qaeda operatives” engaged in “active plots against the United States.” We know from reporting by Pakistani journalists that the vast majority of suspected militants targeted are not members of al-Qaeda, nor are they involved in plots against the U.S. homeland. Many of the targets are actually anonymous, low-level militants who provide operational support to the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan.

The Obama administration’s claim boils down to “if they die from our drones, they were al Qaeda.” There is no gray area, no question of whether they were insurgents, suppliers of insurgents, the son of an insurgent, at the same party as an insurgent, an actual al Qaeda operative, or an al-Qaeda sympathizer, plotting to attack the homeland, or just documenting the aftermath of drone strikes, etc. If we kill them, clearly they were bin Laden reincarnated. The catchall claim, which so far no public official has been properly scrutinized for, is analogous to Richard Nixon’s claim that “if the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

In prepared remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper reviewed “global threats to the United States.” He covered a number of things, one of which was the alleged Iranian plot to kill a Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC back in October. New York Times:

Mr. Clapper also addressed possible threats from Iran as tensions with that country over its nuclear program escalate. He said that the alleged Iranian plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime.”

…He also said the United States is concerned about Iranian plotting against American or allied interests overseas, adding that “Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against the Ambassador as well as Iranian leaders’ perceptions of US threats against the regime.”

I think this was the very first mention of that case since the dust settled in the days following its initial publicity. What was true then is still true now – that is, no evidence has been made public which substantiates the claim that this was an Iranian plot. And the evidence that is public puts the “Iranian plot” scenario into serious question. As I wrote at the time, practically every Iran expert poked holes in the official story and most of the plot was hatched by U.S. law enforcement as opposed to the disgruntled Texas-based Iranian-American accused.

Clapper’s other claim that America needs to be on alert for Iranian attacks “against our interests abroad” is a perfect example of an Orwellian inversion of the truth.

First of all, much of what he means by “our interests abroad” is “our ability to attack Iran.” The U.S. has garrisoned Iran’s surroundings with the most provocative militarism on the globe. U.S. troops and bases in the region are used as strategic locations from which to launch a military attack on Iran. As the New York Times reported in October:

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

…In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

Far be it from Iran to view that as a security threat.

Secondly, Iran is weak and inept. Their military capabilities are so meager compared to the United States that it’s a wonder Americans buy into Washington’s warnings that they’re a threat. They are also not building a nuclear weapon, which makes them defenseless against the U.S. Iran is now also suffering from some of the harshest economic sanctions in the world that are now beginning to cripple their economy. Yet, this is the country we need to worry about attacking us (not, of course, the other way around, which is far more likely).

From AFP over the weekend:

The United Nations has called on Israel to immediately halt the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank after reporting a dramatic rise in demolitions in the past year.

Israeli forces destroyed 622 Palestinian homes in the West Bank in 2011, “forcibly displacing” almost 1,100 people, over half of them children, according to a UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report.

This is, of course, nothing new. The UN repeatedly recognizes many of Israel’s actions as unacceptable or illegal. The blockade on Gaza is another frequent one, but the forcible displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank is probably the most prevalent. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), submitted a report in September to three of the UN’s Special Rapporteurs claiming that Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem violate international law, may constitute a war crime, and asked for an investigation into these practices. It says Israel is “forcing the migration process on the basis of ethnicity – which violates international law, and is possibly a war crime.”

As is so common when talking about human rights abuses with a bird’s eye view, the true nature of what it means to destroy Palestinian homes, build new settlements, and prevent them from building their own homes is obscured and indistinct. Which brings us to another incident that occurred over the weekend: a Palestinian man was building a house in the occupied West Bank in violation of Israeli rules of domination. As Philip Weiss explained it: “The man refused to move. The Israeli army drove a tractor over his legs. The tractor belonged to the Palestinians. The Israeli army had seized it. The man was hospitalized.”

More information and photographs here.

There is a single reason this kind of daily abuse and illegality continues, and it doesn’t have anything to do with Israeli intransigence. That single factor is American support.