Scott Horton Interviews Pepe Escobar

Scott Horton, March 27, 2009

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Pepe Escobar, writer for the Asia Times, discusses the importance of home-field advantage in the fossil fuel Great Game, how the U.S. empire of bases is used to dominate access to critical energy resources, the IPI (Iran, Pakistan, India) pipeline proposal that defies U.S. influence and the increasing cooperation of Russia and China on energy issues.

MP3 here. (26:36)

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving Into Liquid War and Obama Does Globalistan. His article “Welcome to Pipelineistan” appears at Tomdispatch.com.

5 Responses to “Pepe Escobar”

  1. I used to like Pepe but frankly, half the time he doesn’t know what he is talking about. A short while back he had famously declared that Peshawar (my city) was ruled by the Taliban. His analysis is so crude that he can’t even distinguish between the neocons and the realists. He keeps bringing up Brzezinski, while ignoring the fact that since at least the end of the Cold War, ZB has been a proponent of non-intervention. ZB’s old Trilateralist consensus approach stands in stark contrast to the neocons unilaterlist interventionist model. And all this energy-determinism in his analysis is a cop-out, or as my friend Phil Weiss would say, a left-wing parking job.

  2. Idrees, how can you possibly claim ZB a non-interventionist?

    He was against the Iraq war, simply bcs he felt it took resources away from Asia, Afghanistan

    He was FOR EVERY other NATO US-Uk intervention. He has written books about his vision of the world, and how the US can maintain “global primacy” in these regions.

    Maybe his TRilateral interventionism seems different to UNIlateral interventionism, but it really is the same ugly thing.

    Re this interview, it is an eye-opener. It ‘s true what Escobar says: We don’t hear much about SCO in the media- to our detriment!

  3. I am not surprised at the attempt to control oil, it was one of the reasons, in the PNAC letter to Clinton, for going into Iraq.

  4. Idrees, how can you possibly claim ZB a non-interventionist?

    Based on the evidence of the past 8 years I guess.

    He was against the Iraq war, simply bcs he felt it took resources away from Asia, Afghanistan

    Why does it matter why he was against? Do people have to pass some test of good intention before we grant them the privilege of opposing wars?

    He was FOR EVERY other NATO US-Uk intervention. He has written books about his vision of the world, and how the US can maintain “global primacy” in these regions.

    I presume you are talking about The Grand Chessboard. Have you read it?

    Maybe his TRilateral interventionism seems different to UNIlateral interventionism, but it really is the same ugly thing.

    Not to the 1.2 million dead Iraqis.

    This is precisely the kind of overblown rhetorical hot-air that has made the left so irrelevant. There is no room for nuance. Even if it translates into the obliteration of whole nations.

  5. I am not surprised at the attempt to control oil, it was one of the reasons, in the PNAC letter to Clinton, for going into Iraq.

    Was it? Is that why the US rejected three separate overtures by Saddam Hussein to hand over control of oil in desparate attempts to stave off the war between Sept 2002 and March 2003?

Leave a Reply