Why the USA can't leave Iraq

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 09 Apr 2008, 07:27

Peak Oil News - 08/04/08

Christopher King argues that, with its economy in rapid decline and with oil increasingly in short supply, the US will not only endeavour to remain in control of Iraqi oil, but will also attempt to seize Iran?s oilfields and that, moreover, the US people will support this in order to preserve their living standard.

Article continues ...

No surprises there then.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 09 Apr 2008, 11:19

If we wish to keep this way of life going; wars are good.

brasso · Post by **brasso** » 09 Apr 2008, 12:53

Just finished reading 'Blood and oil' by Klare, and it seems to have been this way for decades, it's only in recent years it seems to have come to public attention via Iraq. If anything, the US will probably end up sending more troops to the middle east region, and anywhere else there's plenty of oil...

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 09 Apr 2008, 14:23

brasso wrote:Just finished reading 'Blood and oil' by Klare, and it seems to have been this way for decades, it's only in recent years it seems to have come to public attention via Iraq. If anything, the US will probably end up sending more troops to the middle east region, and anywhere else there's plenty of oil...

Here's a fun little game to play: Plot on a map the major, predominantly oil, trade routes and where the main exporters of oil to the US are. Then mark on the map all the known US military bases.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Apr 2008, 17:38

syberberg wrote:Here's a fun little game to play: Plot on a map the major, predominantly oil, trade routes and where the main exporters of oil to the US are. Then mark on the map all the known US military bases.

It was the same in the time of the British Empire: bases along all the trade routes. But the US doesn't have an Empire, does it? ':shock:'

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 09 Apr 2008, 22:24

The United States is not in a position to seize Iran's oilfields. It has neither the troops nor the money to do so. It cannot occupy another country the size and hostility of Iran at the same time as dealing with the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and a major banking crisis caused by the fact that it is insolvent.

The enemies of the US can, at any time, cause a fatal run on the dollar. Russia and China can pull the plug on any US attempt to occupy Iran, by making it's currency worthless.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 09 Apr 2008, 23:13

Interesting first post UndercoverElephant. Welcome to PowerSwitch

You are probably dead right to any rational decision making. But we have 2 problems, firstly there are serious concerns over the rationality of decision making at the top of the US decision tree. Secondly, due to all the things you mentioned, the US is probably at their most dangerous and could calculate that they don't have a lot to lose and may have a lot to gain!

But I hope you are right.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 09 Apr 2008, 23:41

Hi Snow Hope.

The powers that be in the US only agreed to a troop surge in Iraq because they were convinced it would lead to a viable exit strategy. This week it has become clear that if troop numbers are reduced to post-surge levels, all "gains in Iraq" will be lost. In other words: there is no exit strategy. I don't believe it would be possible to convince those powers that be to approve of sending troops into Iran. Those people are too worried about other problems right now. I'm not sure how much power GWB has left. I think he wants out. The baton is getting hot and wants to pass it on before it visibly catches fire. Pity his successor.

Geoff

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 10 Apr 2008, 03:39

Iran could possibly get away with it as long as their Euro based Oil Bourse doesn't take off.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 10 Apr 2008, 10:52

I am 100% with undercover elephant.

I think Iraq could of been the last major military move by the US.

They are truely snookered!

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 10 Apr 2008, 11:01

If you're right, and I think you are, does that leave the way for Iran to make a deal with Saudi with respect to a swap of gas for oil? Maybe even Russia could make such a deal. I see Armadinajad has been groveling and buddying up to Sauid royalty recenly.....

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 10 Apr 2008, 11:11

snow hope wrote:...there are serious concerns over the rationality of decision making at the top of the US decision tree.

How about replacing "US" with "global".

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 10 Apr 2008, 14:04

SunnyJim wrote:If you're right, and I think you are, does that leave the way for Iran to make a deal with Saudi with respect to a swap of gas for oil? Maybe even Russia could make such a deal. I see Armadinajad has been groveling and buddying up to Sauid royalty recenly.....

All over the world there are going to be private deals on both fossil fuels and food. Oil will be swapped for rice. Gas will be swapped for wheat. Individual countries will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own food and energy security, bypassing global markets. If this prediction is true, then the result will be that commodity prices on the open market will explode. Oil will be trading at $300 a barrel, rice will triple in price from its current level.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 10 Apr 2008, 14:11

UndercoverElephant wrote:
SunnyJim wrote:If you're right, and I think you are, does that leave the way for Iran to make a deal with Saudi with respect to a swap of gas for oil? Maybe even Russia could make such a deal. I see Armadinajad has been groveling and buddying up to Sauid royalty recenly.....
All over the world there are going to be private deals on both fossil fuels and food. Oil will be swapped for rice. Gas will be swapped for wheat. Individual countries will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own food and energy security, bypassing global markets. If this prediction is true, then the result will be that commodity prices on the open market will explode. Oil will be trading at $300 a barrel, rice will triple in price from its current level.

Spot on UCE . . . it's not going to be a great time for any country which is an importer of both food and energy.

Oops . . . that means us.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 10 Apr 2008, 14:21

Andy Hunt wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
SunnyJim wrote:If you're right, and I think you are, does that leave the way for Iran to make a deal with Saudi with respect to a swap of gas for oil? Maybe even Russia could make such a deal. I see Armadinajad has been groveling and buddying up to Sauid royalty recenly.....
All over the world there are going to be private deals on both fossil fuels and food. Oil will be swapped for rice. Gas will be swapped for wheat. Individual countries will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own food and energy security, bypassing global markets. If this prediction is true, then the result will be that commodity prices on the open market will explode. Oil will be trading at $300 a barrel, rice will triple in price from its current level.
Spot on UCE . . . it's not going to be a great time for any country which is an importer of both food and energy.

Oops . . . that means us.

Yeah, it means us. But it will be far worse for developing countries whose economies depend on things like cheap manufacturing and tourism. And it will probably be worst of all for the Chinese: 1.5bn mouths to feed, tens of millions of new car owners, economy dependent on cheap manufacturing.