The following is a very good piece from the Asia Times by a former oil-exchange director. The commentary (below) is from Michael C. Ruppert.
There’s really no inconsistency there. In fact I would say that the contingency planners have already weighed the various probabilities and concluded that it might be easier to achieve stable governments in separate Kurdish and Shia states carved out of Iraq than with Iraq as a whole. Then the lucrative PSAs for the northern fields around Mosul would be a cinch. The Kurds are US clients. Ah, you say, but a Shia state carved out of southeastern Iraq couldn’t happen without Iran’s blessing, and it wouldn’t be a client state.
That’s absolutely right. And that’s one reason why the nuclear weapon issue is a complete red herring. It’s also another reason why the US will never attack Iran and why I believe the two countries are quietly moving closer together rather than towards hostilities. A lot of things could go wrong to change all this. No one has ever argued that Peak Oil was going to produce stability, let alone sanity. But the following Op-Ed from the Asia Times is based upon the reading of a really good map. – MCRuppert]
SPEAKING FREELY
Sweet deals: Behind the Iran 'crisis'
by Chris Cook
Asia Times
Tuesday, April, 11, 2006
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD11Ak01.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
