America’s Jewish Lobby holding back a Tide of Oil.

Neo-Lefties using ‘Wars for Oil’ to cover up ‘Wars for the Jews’.
In america, left wing zionists are so intent on protecting the jews-only state in palestine they argue that america’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq were ‘wars for oil’. They are the counterpart of their more famous, right wing, colleagues who are devoted to the jews-only state, and usually dual citizens of both countries. These neo-lefties suggest that america’s multinational fossil fuel corporations pressured the bush regime into invading afghanistan and iraq so they could exploit these countries’ oil resources or assets. And yet, six years after the invasion of afghanistan, and nearly five years after the invasion of iraq, america’s gigantic energy corporations have been unwilling to invest in these countries and completely failed to gain any control over oil reserves or oil flows. The only benefit they have enjoyed are massive windfall profits. But these profits stem from the disasters suffered by america’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq. These invasions have caused so much chaos that oil exports have dropped, global oil prices have spiralled upwards, and oil companies’ profits have soared. America’s energy corporations have ended up enjoying huge profits not from oil investments in these countries but, perversely, from their failure to make such investments.

The most vociferous supporters of the invasions of afghanistan and iraq were the jewish lobby in america and the jews-only state in palestine. Multinational oil corporations did not support these invasions. They strongly suspected these invasions were going to provoke resistance seriously impairing their chances of exploiting these countries’ oil resources/assets. After the first gulf war, dick cheney opposed the invasion of iraq because he suspected such an invasion would be bad for the oil companies he represented. These invasions were thus ‘wars for the jews’ designed to boost jewish supremacism in the greater middle east rather than ‘wars for oil’.

Neo-lefties are so devoted to the jews-only state they refuse to mention let alone criticize the ‘wars for the jews’ thesis. The last thing they want to do is draw attention to the considerable geopolitical benefits these invasions have brought about for the jews-only state. They are even more reluctant to give such a theory any credence because the western nations involved in these invasions have suffered so much politically, militarily, and economically. This makes it look as if these countries are sacrificing their national interests solely for the benefit of jewish racists in the apartheid state. Neo-lefties could be defined as those who believe it is so imperative to depict these invasions as ‘wars for oil’ that it is not merely irrelevant to debate the ‘wars for the jews’ thesis but politically dangerous to do so. Given that the left in the western world is so unwilling to mention, let alone criticize, this thesis it has to be suggested that most are neo-lefties.

The power of the jews-only state in palestine, and their allies in the western world, is so great they have succeeded in manipulating the west into supporting policies that are beneficial to the jews-only but make it impossible for western energy companies to exploit the greater middle east’s oil. These jewish canutes are holding back a tide of oil.

Zionists pressure American Administrations to ban Oil Investments in Iran.
In 1995, the jewish lobby in america successfully pressured the clinton administration into stopping american oil corporations from investing in iran’s massive fossil fuel industry. This represented a clear cut victory for the jewish lobby over america’s gigantic oil companies. It revealed the jewish lobby had become even more powerful than the oil lobby. The bush regime supported these sanctions and have added to them.

Zionists pressured the Bush Regime into Invading Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has very few fossil fuel resources. Certainly not enough to warrant an invasion to steal them. What it does have, however, is geostrategic value. The neo-lefties suggest that the bush regime invaded afghanistan in order to construct a pipeline which would pass from turkmenistan through afghanistan to pakistan and india. In reality, however, america’s multi-national oil corporations knew that an invasion would cause such chaos it would make the construction of such pipeline impossible. Even if, after the invasion, such a pipeline had been built it would have been impossible to defend. America’s oil corporations would have had a much better chance of proceeding with this pipeline if they’d stopped the war and supported the taliban which could have ensured the social stability necessary for the construction of the pipeline.

The invasion of afghanistan was a ‘war for the jews’ because the jews-only state in palestine wanted an american military presence in the middle east. It believed that once the american military was stationed in the region it would be able to launch further wars in the region against countries which opposed the regional dominance of the jews-only state.

Once again, america’s jewish lobby succeeded in sacrificing the interests of america’s multinational oil corporations for the sake of boosting jewish supremacism in the middle east.

Zionists pressured the Bush Regime into Invading Iraq.
The above analysis of the invasion of afghanistan also applies to america’s invasion of iraq. The jewish lobby was the primary influence pushing the bush regime into the invasion of iraq for the sake of promoting the security interests of the jews-only state in palestine. Multi-national energy corporations opposed the invasion because they knew such an invasion would trigger a resistance struggle that would cause so much chaos it would be impossible for them to exploit the country’s fossil fuel reserves. The iraqi resistance movement has devastated the iraqi oil industry to such an extent it produces far less oil now than it did when iraq was suffering from united nations’ sanctions in the 1990s. "According to various estimates, there have been over 600 incidents of pipeline attacks since the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003; some 60 attacks on refineries; and over 500 attacks on tanker trucks. Close to 650 Iraqi oil workers might have been killed or wounded or kidnapped. Iraq's dual pipelines in the north heading toward Turkey were a major target of attack." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008).

Just as was the case with the invasion of afghanistan, the jewish lobby pushed the bush mafia into the invasion of iraq thereby sacrificing the interests of america’s multinational energy corporations. Nearly five years after the invasion, american oil corporations are still nowhere near to gaining any control over iraq’s oil despite the bush regime’s insistence that iraqi leaders sign away their country’s oil to american energy corporations.

Zionists pressuring the Bush Regime into Invading Iran.
The jewish lobby in america pressured president clinton into banning investments in iran’s fossil fuel industry and has pressured the bush regime to attack iran in order to boost jewish supremacism in the middle east. The outcome of such an attack would be exactly the same as that which has occurred in afghanistan and iraq but on an even more catastrophic scale.

The only group in america supporting an attack on iran, even though this will cause the country an even greater economic, political, and military, disaster than it has already suffered in afghanistan and iraq, is the jewish lobby. No american multinational oil corporation is so irrational as to demand a ‘war for oil’ against iran given their total failures to benefit from america’s previous two invasions. The zionist dominated congress, the likudniks in the bush regime, and the zionist dominated media, are so dedicated to the jews-only state in palestine they don’t care how much america would suffer as a consequence of such an attack. Norman podhoretz has outlined the scale of the disaster that would ensue from such a war and yet he nevertheless persists in traitorously demanding that bush carries on regardless. "In the worst case of this latter scenario, Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq and by attacking Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would also be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. And there would be a deafening outcry from one end of the earth to the other against the inescapable civilian casualties." (Norman Podhoretz ‘Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands’ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printArticle.cfm/Stopping-Iran-br--Why-the-Case-for-Military--Action-Still-Stands-11085 January 29, 2008). This attitude is held by all the zionists in the american political system and the american media. Podhoretz suggests that iran would attack the jews-only state with "biological and/or chemical weapons" but only a hysterical, warmongering, paranoid lunatic like podhoretz would suggest that iran would be insane enough to provoke the jews into retaliating with nuclear weapons.

Zionists pressuring the Bush Regime into stopping Turkey from Investing in Iran’s Oil Industry.
Despite the bush regime’s desire to curb the world’s energy investments in iran, turkey has been investing heavily in iran’s energy industry. "This includes Turkish plans to invest $3.5 billion in the Islamic Republic's South Pars gas fields and to use Iran as a transit country for Turkmen natural gas. The US has said it opposes the plan and does not support any investment in Iran." (‘Turkey, Iran to build power plant in Turkmenistan’ http://www.arabianbusiness.com/498109-turkey-iran-to-built-power-plant-in-turkmenistan August 21, 2007).

Zionists pressuring the Bush Regime into banning European Investments in Iran’s Oil Industry.
The jewish lobby in america has pressured the bush mafia into deterring europe’s multi-national fossil fuel corporations from investing in iran.

Zionists pressuring the Bush Regime into forcing India to end its Oil Investments in Iran.
The jewish lobby in america has pressured the bush mafia into deterring india from supporting the iran-pakistan-india oil pipeline, the so-called peace pipeline. "The US strongly opposes the Iran-India-Pakistan gas pipeline project, and has publicly warned India that it could face sanctions if it goes ahead with the deal, which is considered highly attractive for its energy economics." (Praful Bidwai ‘India to Pay a Price For Launching Israeli Spy Satellite’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=12324 February 07, 2008).

Conclusions.
The jewish lobby in america has pushed america, and its allies, into invasions of afghanistan and iraq which have reduced the flow of oil from, or through, these countries and thus helped to boost the global price of oil. The jewish lobbies in america and the rest of the western world; the zionist extremists in the bush mafia and other western regimes; and the zionist dominated western media, are so powerful they have deterred america, europe, and india, from exploiting iran’s vast fossil fuel resources. They have forced these continents to sacrifice their national interests, the interests of their gigantic multinational fossil fuel corporations and fossil fuel consimers, for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine. In effect, they are holding back a tide of iranian oil from flowing to three continents. As a consequence, increasing amounts of iranian oil is now going to china. The power of the jewish elites in the western world is transparent from their trashing of america’s and europe’s multinational oil corporations. The neocons have occasionally hinted that america’s so–called war against terrorism is just a ploy to boost jewish supremacism in the middle east but their left wing (and liberal) counterparts continually use the ‘wars for oil’ hypothesis to cover up these ‘wars for the jews’. The neo-lefties/neo-liberals denounce ‘wars for oil’ but they are in effect helping to popularize such wars by drawing the public’s attention to afghanistan’s/iraq’s oil assets. The more they denounce ‘wars for oil’ the more the public is tempted to believe the theft of such a critical resource would be hugely beneficial to them.

For the last sixty years the jews-only state has slaughtered palestinians and provoked wars against neighbouring moslem states in order to promote jewish colonialism. In the 1980s it became apparent to america’s jewish neocons that it would be beneficial to get the west to fight on the jews’ behalf against their enemies in the middle east. Why should the jews-only state fight such wars when it could dupe america, and much of western europe, into fighting on their behalf? The west’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq were simply extensions of the jews’ invasion of palestine. The so-called ‘war against terrorism’ is just another front in the jews’ war against palestinians and their moslem allies. Jewish lobbies in the western world have pressured america and western europe into promoting jewish supremacism in the middle east even though this means decimating all moslem countries in the region.

Postscript: Bhadrakumar resurrects the ‘Wars for Oil’ Thesis.
In a recent article, m.k. bhadrakumar has given a new twist to the ‘wars for oil’ thesis. He starts off by arguing firstly, that the american oil industry suspects that saudi arabia’s oil reserves are not as substantial as they were once thought to be and, secondly, that most of the world’s oil resources are currently controlled by national governments. These two factors make iraq’s oil reserves of increasing political importance to america. As america’s military surge has seemingly dampened violence in iraq, america’s oil companies are now on the verge of getting a chance to exploit the country’s oil resources. The bush regime has given up waiting for iraqi legislators to pass a new oil law that would hand over control of their country’s oil to american companies but its alternative plan is to encourage iraq’s oil minister to sell off the country’s oil reserves to american oil companies. However, the only way that such contracts could be upheld is if the american military remains in iraq on a permanent basis. Thus, according to bhadrakumar, "What becomes evident is that the Bush administration neither intends to cut and run from Iraq nor is it in search of an exit strategy. On the contrary, it is ensuring that Iraq remains under American control for as long as it takes for the US to evacuate the oil and gas out of that country. Bush sees this as his historical legacy." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008).

It remains to be seen whether the iraqi people will allow the americans to remain in their country and steal their oil whilst they live, like palestinians, in a state of abject destitution. But even if america succeeds in syphoning off the country’s oil all that this means is that the "war for oil" rationalization at long last gains parity with the "war for the jews" rationalization. If the american military tries to remain in iraq, and implements bush’s legacy, this would benefit both the jews-only state and america’s oil companies. However, it is highly unlikely that iraqis will tolerate america’s long term occupation and the expropriation of their oil resources. And, as far as america is concerned, the military costs of its occupation will far be far greater than the oil revenues derived from the small amounts of oil that it might be able to expropriate.

This is not, however, the end of the story. There’s a twist in the tail. According to bhadrakumar, if the american military remains in iraq then it will seek to use the exploitation of iraq’s vast fossil fuel resources to change the balance of power in the region. He believes america will try to use iraq’s oil to consolidate political links between turkey, the jews-only state, and india, as a geopolitical counter to russia, china, and iran. "Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, who visited Delhi recently, has reportedly proposed to his Indian counterpart the possibility of Turkey exporting oil from the Ceyhan port to Israel's Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline and Indian super tankers sourcing oil from the Israeli port of Eilat in the Gulf of Aquba. A visit by Turkish President Abdullah Gul to India, followed by a visit by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is in the cards." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008).

The most sensible way for iraq to develop its oil/gas resources in conjunction with south asia would be to build a pipeline through iran then to india via pakistan or afghanistan. This would minimize the cost of transportation and thus maximize oil company profits and minimize costs to consumers. However, bhadrakumar envisages the bush regime will try to pump iraq’s oil westwards to turkey; then southwards to the jews-only state; and then via supertankers out through the red sea eastwards to india. This strategy will achieve two objectives. Firstly, it will circumvent iran and prevent iran from obtaining any benefit from iraq’s fossil fuels. Secondly, it will hugely benefit turkey and the jews-only state both financially and strategically. However, the consequence of this circuitous route is that iraq and india will bear all the costs. The transportation costs of this route will be four or five times higher than the direct route from iraq through iran to india. In other words, american oil companies in iraq and indian consumers will end up financing turkey and the jews-only state through the much higher than necessary price of iraqi energy. America’s oil companies should be pressuring the bush regime into supporting the construction of a pipeline from iraq through iran to india in order to maximize their profits. On the other hand, the jewish lobby is pressuring the bush regime into supporting circuitous detour around the middle east which will benefit the jews-only state but only at the expense of the interests of america’s oil companies and indian consumers. Is it possible this tiny country of only six million jewish colonialists will be able to overpower america’s oil companies yet again? Not forgetting india’s hundreds of millions of oil consumers.

Comments
From wdde February 22, 2008
"The neo-lefties/neo-liberals denounce ‘wars for oil’ but they are in effect helping to popularize such wars by drawing the public’s attention to afghanistan’s/iraq’s oil assets. The more they denounce ‘wars for oil’ the more the public is tempted to believe the theft of such a critical resource would be hugely beneficial to them."

What convoluted logic. This effect of this statement is to shift blame for the rapacious/warmongering nature of America and Britain onto those "Neo-Leftists" or peace activists who advance the War for Oil thesis. By this thinking, it's the Left/Antiwar movement's fault for these US-UK wars!

But if America, Britain, and their public were as "peaceful" and virtuous as they like to claim, then the oil issue itself would be moot, regardless of whether one believes it or not. This public would not support the war whatever the pretext, lie, or rationale used to promote it. And since when do "NeoLeftists" have any major political or media influence in the USA or UK? I doubt if the British and American people pay much attention to what the Left or Peace movements say in the least.

Right Wing propaganda outlets like Fox News, Sky News, The Daily Mail, NY Post, and Telegraph are much more influential and powerful.

It's evident that certain British and Americans here are trying (somewhat desperately) to avoid blame for the criminal war against Iraq that the USA and UK have waged.

But they, along with close allies like Israel, will not so easily escape responsiblity.

Response
I wasn’t trying to shift blame away from the neo-cons onto neo-lefties/neo-liberals so much as point out that the latter also have to take a share of the blame for the west’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq. In general, the right do not frame their rationales for war in terms of gaining control over oil resources. Perhaps you might remember there was considerable public comment on greenspan’s surprising admission that the war had been about oil. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."" (Alan Greenspan quoted in M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008). So, the neo-lefties/liberals are really the only ones who raise this issue even if they oppose it as a rationale for war. I have to suggest that they deliberately publicize this issue in order to avoid any debate about ‘wars for the jews’.