Mo Mowlam (former UK Government cabinet member) says the real goal of an Iraq war "is the seizure of Saudi oil".
September 5, 2002 7:46 AM   Subscribe

Mo Mowlam (former UK Government cabinet member) says the real goal of an Iraq war "is the seizure of Saudi oil". The much-loved Northern Ireland peace process go-between writes that the threat of Saddam Hussein is already well-contained and that "Bush wants war to keep US control of the region". Hers is a view espoused fairly regularly of late. Would it really damage the American position to admit that this more about oil than about terrorism?
posted by skylar (12 comments total)

 
SKYLAR I am in total agreement - I read this this morning. In fact I believe what is not specifically discussed (but everyone knows) is the predicted 'OPEC/NOPEC crossover event' (somewhere between 2008 and 2011 [depending on source] Non OPEC Countries gradually start increasing their market share, and petro dollars start becomming increasingly irrelevant. Some neo-survivalists agree with theOlduvai theory, of which, we can safely assume, the ruling hegemony will do all it can within and outside of the law to stop.

They already are:- Antartica exploration will happen, the US Navy 'protection' of every major sea lane will continue, and any vacuum created by a *shhh* collapse of the House of Saud will be filled with hegemonic lookalikes or speakalikes. (They nearly made it in Venezuaela recently)

But NOPEC will get relentlessly more important. Put your money in Gazprom shares.
Whilst you do that, I'm going to play some dark drum and bass and get even more paranoid.... wooooooo
posted by HeadSessions at 8:03 AM on September 5, 2002


Um, all other obviousness aside, it also seems likely the U.S. wants the oil because Russia wants it too.

Best "confirmation" that I have seen that "war" is likely imminent is that U.S. Navy... [recently] booked a large commercial vessel to move tanks and heavy armor to the Gulf. (Please forgive that I also posted this comment elsewhere. I think the commercial ship booking is a key piece of the puzzle that isn't getting much attention.)
posted by Shane at 8:30 AM on September 5, 2002


Mo Mowlam says the real reason she is spouting about this is a a tiresome effort to keep her in the public eye, rather hamiltonesque.
posted by johnnyboy at 9:00 AM on September 5, 2002


"rather hamiltonesque."
how dare you affront her honor sir.
kidding, i like that.
i have an idea
LETS BUY THE OIL?
posted by clavdivs at 9:06 AM on September 5, 2002


"This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil" - Mo Mowlam.

Err, what Mo said.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:07 AM on September 5, 2002


Does Tony know George's game and wants a share of the spoils, or is he utterly naive?
posted by niceness at 9:37 AM on September 5, 2002


Does Tony know George's game and wants a share of the spoils, or is he utterly naive?

That's exactly my worry. I can't work him out. I watched his press conference on Tuesday and he came across as being genuinely impassioned. He was like a head teacher who tells you he's very disappointed in you before getting the slipper out. You really do believe this is a moral crusade for him. But then he is an ex-barrister so I'm inclined to believe it's an act. Especially as Bush used some of the same language (to less effect) in his press conference a day later.
posted by Summer at 10:34 AM on September 5, 2002


It's really not that complicated, two of the UK's largest and most poweful companies are BP and Shell. They stand to make trillions of dollars if there is a new Iraqi regime that doesn't have a nationalized oil company. Saddam is a tyrant, so the down side is not huge, espcially if the victory is as easy as UK and US warplanners believe it will be.


The flip side is France and Russia, who have already signed deals with the current regime, and are against the invasion.
posted by cell divide at 10:39 AM on September 5, 2002


blair is indeed a clever man, but he's playing a careful game of appeasement and conflict. there's not a great deal of support in britain for an invasion, but he doesn't want to lose out on any 'special relationship' that the uk has with the us.

in short, he's playing a waiting game. and he's not the only one.
posted by triv at 11:04 AM on September 5, 2002


Not arguing here, but I always thought Royal Dutch/Shell Oil was a Dutch company.
posted by wackybrit at 11:20 AM on September 5, 2002


I watched his press conference on Tuesday and he came across as being genuinely impassioned.

Actually, the 'cross headmaster' is a better fit for Tony's school assembly on Tuesday. I also think the Graun got it right when it said 'Mr Blair was personally peevish about his critics, an unattractive habit that he should try harder to shed.' It's that combination of snippy, vindictive and condescending Tonyness which the 'St Albion's Newsletter' takes off so well.

And yeah, it was almost creepy the way that Bush got on-message with Blair a few hours later.
posted by riviera at 2:14 PM on September 5, 2002


The Gulf War was REALLY about OIL!!!!!............ Oh my God, I'm overwhelmed!! Here was me thinking that it was all about Kuwaiti sovereignty. That Mo Mowlam really has her finger on the pulse of world politics..............
posted by delboy_trotter at 5:28 PM on September 5, 2002


« Older Dear Ann Coulter: You're fired. ...  |  'How can you exert pressure on... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments