Our Brother David Musa Pidcock (a Sheffield engineer who reverted to Islam) did not understand like I did that it was useless to start any “Islamic” political party anywhere in this damn world, and certainly not in the land of Satan where the majority of so-called Muslims are Satan’s henchmen and henchwomen.
I labelled “Lord” Nazir Ahmed a traitor after having known and dealt with him directly. I also called Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the defunct Majlis as Shura fi Britaniya (Muslim Parliament of “Great” Britain) a traitor after he sold out to Satan (the British Government of pedophiles, homosexuals, usurers, thieves, and mass murderers), who later joined with another traitor and hypocrite, Dr. Shaaz Mahboob. who were both founding members of the Satanic and Zionist “British Muslims for Secular Democracy” (BMSD). When, a few years ago, I had denounced the BMSD to a woman who was promoting it on Zionist-Illuminati facebook, my “Ghyslaine ROC” account was within minutes blocked to this very day without any warning whatsoever, even though I am not a facebooker or a facebooker addict. My Blog is linked to it.
I learned my lessons the hard way: “Muslims” worldwide are Satan’s henchmen and henchwomen, hypocrites, materialists, tribalists, nationalists, cowards, selfish, blind fanatics, and traitors to their own God (Who is not the One and Only God of our own inspired creation!), traitors to Islam, with most of them looking forward for an inexistent heavenly Paradise, and supposedly fearing a nonexistent heavenly Hell, and traitors to humanity as they have no or very little compassion for deserving and suffering humans. The moment you try to unite them, they UNITE to destroy or betray you! This is what I learned all throughout my adult life. But, they are not alone in this. Most humans behave in a similar manner, and divide themselves into Sects, political groups, tribal and class groups and lobbies.
I was greatly disappointed when I learned he created in 1989 the Islamic Party of Britain of which he was the leader. Its General Secretary was Dr. Sahib Mustaqim Bleher. I came and settled in Britain in 1991 as a persona non grata. I was banned from opening a bank account and was not eligible for any type of work in the public sector, and was not even eligible for any kind of social benefits. I had to bribe my way into obtaining permission to build 24 flats in Colchester and opening a bank account. I never joined any political or religious party in my entire life!
The IPB published a quarterly magazine entitled Common Sense, a great piece of intellectual work, but to what purpose as not many Muslims would really be interested as the majority of them have already joined Satanic political parties, calling themselves Liberal, Conservative, and Labour, or whatever. How many did the IPB reach who really would have made a difference? How many Muslims knew or were informed of such an important intellectual effort? But, as I expected Satan did not let it prosper! So, I learned from Wikipedia that the Party was dissolved in 2006. By the way, Satan operates Jewpedia, Jewgle and Jewtube, and I thank them for allowing us to see a few truths every now and then and even to write despite their censorship!
The lesson I learned a long time ago, since the sixties, was that Muslims would never achieve any positive results at the collective level because the military might of Satan was too strong and they had no opposing force except at the individual level. Peace (or relative peace) can be achieved only if we prepare for war, which obviously Satan would never allow any such preparation. When we see that we cannot even prepare for war, and that we cannot emigrate anywhere else as Satan is in power everywhere, except as small viable communities not involved in politics, we still can follow Islam as our way of life while calling others to it, but with no expectations as a world power except at the spiritual level. Islam is still alive, but there is no Ummah of Muhammad, and Muslims have missed he opportunity of becoming a world power. They had it, but they lost it because of their own decadence and degeneration!
1. USURY, that abomination rules the world and Muslims at all levels!
2. Education is nationalist mind control to make slaves of us all!
3. There is no freedom except in total submission to the Corporate State and its religions and sewage systems!
4. Science lies! Scientists are blackmailed to lie!
5. Governments (Corporate Dictatorships) lie!
6. Preachers are blind fanatics, and they have blind followers, and they even lie about God(s)! They cannot even see that THEIR GODS are powerless and useless, and that SATAN is more powerful, and more successful, not because HE (The ultimate Symbol of Evil) is good or better, but because we are bad and worse!
7. WE pretend to be good while accepting evil, doing evil, and mixing with evil!
Monday 22nd of January 2018
||Delusions of Candour - Akins War For Oil - 29/April/2004|
“WAR FOR OILS?”
How America’s “War For Oil” becomes “Armageddon As Fun City”
Back in 1998, I had the good fortune of being able to speak directly with former Ambassador Akins in Washington, and receive in writing, verifiable facts, which clearly help us to understand the historical origins of past, present and future confrontations in the Gulf. It is clear from his candour and the nature of his disclosures that Mr. Akins does not conform to the traditional definition of a diplomat i.e., that of being - “An honest man sent abroad to lie for his country.” This may have been the intention of those who sent him, but he proved to be a man of principle and considerable courage. As far as he is concerned, the policy currently being pursued by America and her willing, and not so willing coadjutors, is one devised by the author of NSSM 200, the war criminal Henry Kissinger back in the mid 1970’s which, according to Mr. Akins, called for the depopulation not only of Saudi Arabia - and it re-population with Oklahoma and Texas oilmen - but of the entire Arabian peninsular including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. This will come as no surprise to those who have read Kissinger’s National Security Memorandum 200, which calls for the depopulation of at least 13 other countries. In the following letter, addressed to me and faxed to my home in England on the 20th of February 1998, Ambassador Akins made the following, astonishing disclosures, subsequently confirmed by his 1975 – ‘WAR FOR OIL’ REPORT, which we recently obtained in its entirety from the State Department in Washington and attach below for your perusal and assessment.
“In 1990 in the run up to the Gulf war, I said publicly - perhaps in England as well - that Saddam, through his invasion of Kuwait, had given the US the opportunity to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq which I considered the most important Arab country and, as a bonus, to occupy the Arab oilfields as recommended in 1975, but with no losses, indeed, with the cooperation of the Gulf Arabs. I never suggested nor did I believe then or now that our plan was to exterminate the Iraqi people to make way for the settlement of Soviet Jews. In fact, until I read your account of Ms.(Kitty) Little‘s paper (calling for the impeachment of Tony Blair), I had no idea that anyone held such ideas. Ms.Little did not invent the story about Israeli plans to occupy all the lands ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates, including Medina in Saudi Arabia. The Zionists at the Versailles conference (1919) presented a map of Eretz Israel; its borders would include all of Palestine, all of southern Lebanon up to Sidon, all of southern Syria, not just the Golan, including the entire Jebel Druze, and all of inhabitable Trans-Jordan. The Herut party (now part of Likud) uses as its logo this map superimposed by an arm carrying a rifle and the word ‘Kahk” - only thus. This concept has never been disavowed by the Herut/ Likud
“Israeli expansionist aims were and are bad enough; there is no need to exaggerate them. As for Iraq as a place for settlement of Soviet Jews, I believe Ms’ Little is confused. The late Rabbi Kahane said that within three months of his becoming defense minister, Israel will be ‘free” of its Arab population - by this he meant Arabs in Israel as well as those in the occupied territories. And the main area of settlement of these Arabs would be Iraq, with its adequate land, water and oil. Even Kahane never talked about Israel occupying Iraq. I served in Iraq for 4 years and have a great affection and admiration for its people. They have the great misfortune to be governed by a monster. I have long said that within 10 years of the overthrow of Saddam a demilitarized Iraq would be known as the Japan of the Middle East. “I’m no longer sure of this; some of the best Iraqi minds are out of the country and many will never return; Iraq ‘s education and health systems - comparable in many ways to the best in the west - have been destroyed, children who are near starvation cannot learn much at school.
“I would like to see sanctions lifted; they have failed completely in their stated goal of removing Saddam who is stronger, internally, than he was in 1990. Starving, desperate peoples do not make revolutions; their only concern is finding enough calories to survive the day. Many in the Middle East believe the US needs Saddam in power to retain its hold on the Arabs of the peninsula. While I am not privy to the workings of official American political circles I doubt if there is any such intention. Americans don‘t think in such terms, at least those currently in power (Feb 1998) don‘t. I myself believe Saddam must go - and the sooner the better - before [the] resurrection of Iraq can begin…” [end]
James E. Akins is described in the 1986-87 International edition of Who’s Who as an: “American diplomatist, writer and lecturer. Born in 1926; educated at Akron University; U.S. Navy 1945-46; undertook relief work with non-profit organisations. 1948-50; taught in Lebanon 1951-52; held numerous diplomatic posts in Paris 1954-55, Strasbourg 1955-56, Damascus 1956-57, Kuwait 1958-60, Baghdad 1961-64; Washington, D.C. 1965-67, Dir. Fuels and Energy Office 1968-72; U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1973-75. Publications: numerous articles on oil (including the attached War For Oil) and energy policy and the Middle East.”
Noam Chomsky confirmed Ambassador Akins’ contention when he penned the following for the 1998 edition of the Sunday Observer dated February the 2l,st: “Nor should it be forgotten that before August 1990 Saddam Hussein was a favored trading partner of the US and UK. He was ‘our kind of guy’. Saddam Hussein remains a monster and a serious threat as he was when he conducted his most awful crimes with US/UK support. But the reaction of his former backers reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy. And their current designs - even putting aside considerations of international Law - may well make a terrible situation even worse.” Elsewhere Chomsky made mention of the fact that over a decade before this Saddam Hussein offered to destroy all his WMD so long as Israel agreed to do the same.
To those who say: what would Israel do without its WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) surrounded by a sea of hostile bloodthirsty Arabs, we must remind them to read Chaim Weitzmen’s 1919 speech in London in which he warns Israel that it should not act (as it currently does) as a Junkers in the region. His favourable speech was in response to the welcoming acceptance of the Zionist entity into Palestine by King Faisal of Iraq. This letter – which, according to Gertrude Bell’s biographer, was addressed to Felix Frankfurter the head of the American Zionist delegation – was signed in London by King Faisal on the 3rd of January 1919: Which (a) helped to establish the State of Israel, (b) determine its ultimate fate and (c) explains its present disastrous state of affairs. Faisal, with the help of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, General Allenby’s Chief of Intelligence, and a member of the British team, composed and signed the following declaration:
“We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race…[and] have suffered similar oppression at the hands of powers stronger than themselves …We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement…We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome here…People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists, have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stage of our movements…”
Movements – plural – being the operative word, with both the nationalist Arabs and the secular Jews failing to recognize that the Holy Land possesses its own WWWMD’s that is: Welcomes With Warnings of Mass Destruction to any secular political group or entity that either abandons or denies the tenets of the Everlasting Covenant incumbent on the descendents and followers of Abraham, as well as those allegedly religious entities which pervert the scriptures and, as a result, pervert the course of Justice. As Leviticus states: “The Land Spew you forth.”
The fact remains that The State of Israel was ostensibly set up a garrison, a military outpost, serving the interests of the Anglo-American oil, banking and armament establishments – in all their forms and guises – but particularly the interests of those who occupy the executive offices of the oil companies which have so much to answer for. As Jack Anderson, the Washington reporter put it in 1967:
“…the State Department has often taken its policies right out of the executive offices of the oil companies. When Big Oil can’t get what it wants in foreign countries, the State Department tries to get it for them. In many countries, the American Embassies function virtually as branch offices of the Oil Combine…The State Department can be found almost always on the side of the ‘Seven (ugly) Sisters’, as the oil giants are known…Just as the Rockefellers make sure they are running our perennially disastrous foreign policy, you can bet your last devalued dollar that the Rockefeller Mafia controls the national and international money game. The Rockefellers have made the (US) Treasury Department virtually a branch of the Chase Manhattan Bank.” (Source page 159 of The Rockefeller Files by Garry Allen).
Elsewhere Allen points out: “But even more astonishing is the fact that these darlings of the Jewish establishment control all the oil in the Arab lands…” In a footnote on page 19 he presents Dr. Malcolm Stern’s genealogy from his book: ‘The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite’, which conclusively establishes the fact that regardless of their claims to being Baptists (John D. The Baptist perhaps?) or belonging to any other recognised Christian group, the Rockefellers are in reality Sephardic Jews with a Global Sephardic agenda. Hence their provision of the land in New York for the U.N, and their founding and funding of the United Nations. Allen concludes: “The family (which owns and controls the Standard Oil Company – ESSO) controls oil holdings worth hundreds of millions in Arab lands, yet Nelson has remained the darling of organized Jewry in New York City. Without such support he could never have been elected governor of New York State four times. Just how the family manages that bit of wizardry boggles the mind…” Hence the classical definition of a Zionist (in the garment districts of New York and Toronto) as being: “A Jew, who wants some other Jew to go live in Palestine.”
The Bilderberg Group, is also part of the “wizardry” mentioned. Which includes among its members and regular attendees the likes of Henry Kissinger, Conrad Black, Dennis Healy, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Lord Roll of S.G. Warburg. Of particular interest was the pre-New-Labour attendances of John Smith and Gordon Brown at the Baden Baden meetings held in Germany during June 6th and 9th 1991, which marked them out as potential allies. This was denied by Labour’s Central office when the Evening Standard published extracts from my book Satanic Voices on the 17th of August 1992. The Londoner’s Diary headline for that day read: Smith denies ‘Mason Meeting’ The article continues: “Putting recent humiliation behind it, the Labour Party is now determined to present a pristine face to the electorate. So it will not care for a suggestion that its leader and Shadow Chancellor are linked to a quasi Masonic group. David Pidcock, author of Satanic Voices, says that John Smith and Gordon Brown attended what he calls a “Super Masonic, One World Government, Bilderberger Conference” in June of last year. According to Pidcock, the conference which attracts little or no media coverage, is attended by a society of “global manipulators”. Pidcock is not alone in finding the Bilderberger group distasteful. C. Gordon Tether, 76, who earned himself a place in the Guinness Book of Records for having the longest-running daily column in the British press – Lombard, on the Financial Times – left after 21 years on the paper, after writing about the Bilderberger Group. “The article probably had a connection with what happened to me,” says Tether. “One of the points of Bilderberger is not to have media attention. There are always big media people there but they never comment. It is a secretive group with important links to the corridors of power. They are top people meeting in secret and not reporting to anyone.” …Both Smith and Brown’s offices deny that either man is linked to the group. “It’s absolute nonsense,” says one of Smith’s spokesmen. But the new Labour leadership can, if needs be, turn for advice to Lord Tebbit, who is happy to admit that he has attended a Bilderberger meeting. “It’s just an organisation, there’s nothing extraordinary about it in my view,” he says. “It was useful to meet people one would not ordinarily meet in an informal setting. I remember meeting Garret Fitzgerald, the Irish Prime Minister, and Pearl – the American defence guy.”
Note:Charles Taylor lost his job writing the Londoner’s Diary at the Evening Standard a few weeks later, he may join C. Gordon Tether in the Guiness Book of Records as the man with the shortest–running daily column in the British press.
Those from the Old Labour Party who are still searching for the reasons why New Labour ditched Clause 4 and gave away the last vestiges of influence over setting the minimum rate of interest to the un-elected Bank of England they need look no further than Bilderberger for the reasons they suddenly became electable. Peter Mandelson’s televised attendance of the Bilderberger conference in Spain confirms their sell out. Bilderberger meetings are usually Chaired by David Rockefeller, which helps to make clear how American and British forces are regularly placed in the firing line at the disposal of Big Oil, and Big Money, which, according to the archives goes back to at least 1887 with a clear reference to the waging of “War For Oil” being made as early as 1913.
As mentioned, initially, this policy was made in regard to the oilfields of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) and were originally proposed by Winston Churchill in 1913; whose views were fully endorsed by a British Royal Commission. We should also not forget the admissions of Gertrude Bell’s protégé T.E.Lawrence in his ‘Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ that his “betrayal”, of the Arabs, was a “regrettable” but necessary device in arriving at a “cheap and speedy victory” in order to protect Britain’s “petroleum” interests in “Mesopotamia.” Which resulted in the ‘Red Line Agreement’ drawn by Bell, and the official carving up of the oil wealth of the Islamic world following the dismemberment of the Turkish Caliphate which ushered into existence - through terrorism and masterful deception - the two “Secular: Zionist States known as “Modern” Turkey and “Democratic Israel.”
Churchill’s view was also shared by Sir Arthur Hirtzel, Permanent Under Secretary to the British government's India Office Political Department. Who, in 1919, made the following recommendation, which clearly came to pass: "What we want to have in existence, what we ought to have been creating in this time is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely leave while pulling the strings ourselves; something that won't cost very much, which the Labour government can swallow consistent with its 'principles, but under which our economic and political interests will be secure. [.....] If the French remain in Syria we shall have to avoid giving them the excuse of setting up a protectorate. If they go, or if we appear to be reactionary in Mesopotamia, there is always the risk that [King] Faisal will encourage the Americans to take over both, and it should be borne in mind that the Standard Oil Company is very anxious to take over Iraq".
No one, with any real knowledge of the present situation in the Middle East, is under any illusion that the present crisis is still ‘all about oil’ and the control of other strategic minerals and natural reserves which are the unholy grail for the likes of Bush, Kissinger, Enron, Unocal, Halliburton and Standard Oil – which, in reality means the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, et al and all their men of straw who run or manipulate most administrations around the world regardless of their public appearance or utterances. Theses include the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, the U.N., NATO, the EU, etc, etc, etc. In his ‘Reminiscences’ John D Rockefeller made the following admission about his group’s control of America’s (disastrous) Foreign Policy. He boasts: “One of our greatest helpers has been the State Department in Washington. Our ambassadors, ministers and consuls have aided to push our way into new markets to the utmost corners of the world.” Of which it is said: “American Foreign Policy has meant billions of dollars for the Rockefellers. It has been paid for in many cases by the blood of our soldiers and in every case by the sweat of our taxpayers.”
After centuries of war - which owe everything to escalating debt, usury, and the prevailing BSE – culture which means always Blame Someone Else, we are still being duped by cleverly devised pretexts - engineered to inflame and promote unacceptable ideas through propaganda. Pretexts such as 9-11, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Lusitania.
The alleged “Failures of Intelligence” are rarely caused by: “A lack of information about specifics or about the people involved or plotting terrorist acts - but about how to use the intelligence once it is gathered and what to do (or not do) with it.” This is clear from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which was fully known about and expected by the American Administration as early as 1939, and the British, whose plan it was, and, therefore, could have been averted if they had wanted it to be. Unfortunately, according to President Harry Truman, the 2,403 American servicemen and civilians who died on the 7th of December 1941, were all sacrificed by President Roosevelt: “in order to wake up an otherwise apathetic populace.” In the light of which his “Day of Infamy” Speech should be renamed the “Day of Double Infamy”.
Lest we forget! In a Congressional speech in the United States Senate on April 25th 1939, recorded in the Congressional Record, 76th Congress, Vol.84, No.82, pages 6597-6604, Senator Gerald P. Nye, of North Dakota, said: "There has been published a series of works under the title 'The Next War.' One of the volumes in this series is entitled 'Propaganda In The Next War.' This particular volume was written by one Sidney Rogerson. I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background or of his connections; but the editor-in-chief of all these works, including the one entitled 'Propaganda in the Next War' is a man whose name is recognized the world over as an authority in Great Britain. He is non-other than Capt. Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and a military authority in Europe. The following are quotations from this authority:
‘For sometime the issue as to which side the United States would take hung in the balance, the final result was a credit to our propaganda [i.e. British]. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world Jew population of approximately 15,000,000, no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25% of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish Public by the promise of the Jewish national home in Palestine, held by (General) Ludendorf to be the master stroke of allied propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well.’
"To persuade her (the United States) to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed; It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel... The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved, and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be the natural and obvious object of our propagandists to this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany. Fortunately with America, our propaganda is on firm We can be entirely sincere, as our main plank will he democratic one. We must clearly enunciate our belief in the democratic form of government, and our firm resolve to adhere to it. Our minor propaganda will aim at attaching the support of important sections, such as the Jews, probably by the declaration of a clear-cut policy on Palestine, and of our intentions, if victorious, to put an end to anti-Semitic persecutions and of the Roman Catholic community in similar terms...In the realm of the moving picture industry we may be able to depend on the natural bias of the United States film manufacturers in favour of Great Britain as opposed to Germany, Japan, or Italy, and on their command of the machinery of international film distribution. This will be an asset both with the stock entertainment picture and the news reels."
George Armstrong informs us that at the time of him writing “The Rothschild Money Trust” in 1940, that: "The President has dispatched the fleet to the Pacific. This is for the purpose of war with Japan. It can be of no other purpose. If Japan will only torpedo one of these boats, the Jewish Press, the Jewish Radio and the Jewish Cinema the do the rest. The Jewish Admiral Taussig stated to a Congressional Investigating Committee that 'War with Japan is inevitable, [The Rothschild Money Trust, page 64] He goes on to state that: "They 'bought-off the huge American Jewish Public' with the promise of Palestine, and with them they bought the powerful metropolitan Jewish press and the Wilson Administration, says George Armstrong, in his The Rothschild Money Trust. But the next time it would require an act of aggression in line with Rogerson’s suggestion; a suggestion that eventually came to pass.
Miles Copeland, in his autobiography: 'The Game Player [pages 68-69] confirms that president Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to destroy America's Pacific Fleet and hundreds of his own people. There was no need to break Japanese codes, for both the Americans and the British already knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Following the founding of the CIA, Copeland’s new boss informed him about the meeting between CIA-Admiral Sidney Sauers and president Harry Truman. When Sauers promised that America would never again suffer an attack like Pearl Harbor, Truman said that he obviously had not received his secret briefing, otherwise he would have known that "President Roosevelt got the intelligence, and he decided to let the Pearl Harbor attack happen as a way of arousing an otherwise apathetic populace."
This is further confirmed by the Diaries of Captain Henry Stimson, U.S. Secretary of State for War, in which we find the following admission mentioned in: “President Roosevelt and the Coming Of The War 1941 – A Study In Appearances & Realities”, by Charles A Beard, Yale University Press, the admission that he, together with General Marshall, Admiral Stark; U.S. Secretary of the Navy Knox, Hull, and Roosevelt were all sitting in the Oval Office, on the 25th of November, one full week before the attack on Pearl Harbor, wondering: “how to manoeuvre the Japanese into firing the first shot without allowing to much danger to ourselves…” His “Day of Infamy” speech being written long before the actual event. For Roosevelt, unlike Churchill: “did not role his own.”
Therefore, the success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was entirely due to the fact that it was part of a much wider, long-term plan, which served the strategic interests of the black propagandists - a plan and a process which is still in force today. It occurred because, as Truman understood and Roosevelt stated: “Nothing happens by accident. If a thing happened it happened because it was planned that way…”
The Daily Mirror of October 9th 2003, carried the following statement made by Frank Knox U.S. Navy Secretary on the 4th of December 1941, which it claims to have been one of the most embarrassing “Empty Boasts” of All time: “No matter what happens, the US Navy is not going to be caught napping.” From the foregoing we know that Knox was at the White House meeting on the 25th of November and it was not.
In 2002 I included parts of the above in the new foreword for the re-published version of Propaganda and The Next War. Concluding with the following statement: “When the evidence finally emerges about the real identity of the masterminds behind the events of September 11th, it seems hard to imagine that George W Bush Jr, along with a sizeable contingent from his entourage and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be able to escape impeachment for what could justifiably be termed Slaughtergate 9-11. Particularly when linked to the collapse of Enron, the possible winding up or “shredding” of Arthur Anderson and as the basis for the sequel to the movie ‘Wag The Dog’, for, as someone quite rightly remarked – The Plot Sickens.
From memory, in the movie - The Long Kiss Goodnight, following the first attempt to create Pearl Harbor II, at the Twin Towers in New York, the actor Samuel Jackson, is informed that in the next attempt they would need to kill at least 4,000 people, to which he replies: and how are you going to fake that? To which is said: “who says we’re going to fake it. We’ll do it but blame the Moslems…”
There now follows the much-awaited report of America’s former Ambassador James E. Akins, who as mentioned above, was unable to obtain copies of his own reports (confidential or otherwise) including this prophetic “War For Oil” one, which he made in 1975. As the letter from the Department of State shows, this was further withheld from us until after the most destructive phase of this crusading saga was played out, with Standard Oil now finally in control of its 1913 objective – the oilfields of Mesopotamia - Iraq. But - as Akins makes abundantly clear - for how long?
Dear Mr. Pidcock:
Pursuant to your request of March 3, 1998 for the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (Title 5 USC Section 552), we initiated a search of the Central Foreign Policy Records.
The search of Central Foreign Policy Records has been completed, resulting in the retrieval of the document you have requested. After reviewing the document, we have determined that it may be released in full. The released document is enclosed.
The Freedom of Information Act permits Federal agencies to recover the direct costs of searching for and duplicating records that have been requested for non-commercial use. However, no fee may be charged either for the first two hours of search time or for the first one hundred pages of duplication. Inasmuch as fewer than one hundred pages have been duplicated and less than two hours of search time expended, your request has been processed without charge to you.
We have now completed the processing of your case. If you have any questions with respect to the processing of your request, you may write to the Office of IRM Programs and Services, SA-2, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20522-6001. Please be sure to refer to the case number shown above in all correspondence about this case.
We hope that the Department has been of service to you in this matter.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
A I R G R A M P750067-0617 CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Department of State INFO:Abu Dhabi, Algiers, Amman, Beirut, Bonn, Brussels, USEC Brussels, Cairo, Caracas, COMIDEASTFOR, Canberra, Copenhagen, Dhahran, Doha, USMTM Dhahran, Jakarta, Kuwait, Lagos, Libreville, London, Manama, Moscow, Muscat, Ottawa, Paris, OECD Paris, Quito, Rabat, Rome, Sanaa, Stockholm, Tehran, Tel Aviv, The Hague. Tokyo, Tripoli, Tunis, USCINCEIJR, Vienna, Welling. FROM: Amembassy Jidda DATE: April 13, 1975
SUBJECT: War for Oil
WAR FOR OIL:
ARMAGEDDON AS FUN CITY
I. Introduction 2
II. The Flaws in the Basic Premise and the Moral Issue 6
III. The Reactions of Others to Invasion 10
IV. The Invasion and Its Costs 20
V. Saudi Actions and Reactions 20
VI. The Length of the Cutoff and the Consequences 25
VII. The Alternatives to War 29
VIII. Conclusion 32
CONFIDENTIAL Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A~23 Page 2 of 34
WAR FOR OIL:
ARMAGEDDON AS FUN CITY
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in an interview in January said the United States would react with force if we were being strangled by a cutoff in oil deliveries. The question was hypothetical, but no one could maintain that there could have been any other response than the one he made. To have intimated that we would simply allow ourselves to be “strang1ed” would have called for his immediate impeachment. Secretary Kissinger in a subsequent interview said that he obviously had not meant there could be military action just to bring down oil prices.
The implications of the first remark nonetheless were noted with concern in most of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting tries (OPEC) and in Europe. Many of them condemned the Secretary and the United States for this “provocation.” Saudi Arabia made no public statement and no representations to us. Saudi officials told us in private discussions that they understood what the Secretary meant and they trusted us. In spite of significant differences of opinion and actions on the Middle East problem - they regarded their friendship with us as a cornerstone of their foreign policy. They knew we knew this and they knew Saudi Arabia was too important to the United States and its allies for us to jeopardize this close association.
Enclosure No I Jidda A-23 Page 3 of 34
The invasion issue would probably have been quietly forgotten had it not been picked up, embellished, and presented to the world in five separate articles, all of which were widely quoted and discussed in the United States, Europe, and the Midd1e East. The first was in a prominent journal of intellectual opinion - it appeared shortly after Secretary Kissinger’s statement and was reproduced in the Sunday edition of Washington’s morning newspaper. Then there were two articles in widely-circu1ated American newspapers which were based on “sources” inside the Pentagon Then in mid-February, the Sunday edition of another major newspaper carried a detailed account of how many actions could be taken against OPEC short of war but that even war could be carried out if necessary and occupation of Arabia should be easy. Most recently and most provocatively was the lead article in the March issue of a literary magazine. Some of the articles and the related commentary concentrated on military action against all the Arabs, some against the Arabs of the Persian Gulf but a common theme to all of them was the necessity of occupying Saudi Arabia. Some insisted this move be taken immediately as the West was already being “strangled’ by the high oil prices; all five articles agreed this would be done in time of war. And all five agreed that only Saudi Arabia had enough oil to force down world oil prices. The premise, on which all the articles were based, was that the high price of oil is the main problem the world’s economy faces today; that inflation and unemployment are caused by the price of oil and that there is no way we could or should cooperate with the OPEC countries. This being accepted, the authors continued that we have the right to take the oil, that we could take it with a minimum of difficulty, that supplies would be disrupted for only a very short time, that Saudi Arabia and its OPEC allies would be powerless to react, and that the Soviet Union, because Saudi Arabia was a “friend” of the United States, would not intervene or allow its Middle East allies to intervene. Invasion, it was argued, would be simple, cheap and easy. Furthermore, it would be morally justified, in fact, it is a moral imperative for us to take over Saudi Arabia, produce its oil and sell it for almost nothing. The world’s inflation would then be cured; unemployment would end; and we would devote - ourselves to the task of finding new energy sources when the Saudi oil would finally be exhausted.
Enclosure No.I Jidda A-23 Page 4 of 34
The losers would clearly be the Saudis. To some, the dispossession of six million Saudis would be regrettable, but - it would be argued - a small price to pay for world happiness. The 200 million living in other CPEC countries - Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, would of course also be hurt but they would not be invaded. Their loss of income would just be one of life’s difficulties to which they would have to adjust.
The January article was answered by I F Stone in the New York Review of Books February 5. In his essay - ‘War for Oil,” Mr. Stone condemned the immorality of the invasion proposal and details how it could lead the world and particularly the United States to disaster. The invasion proposal, as such, was attacked by Terence McCarthy in the March issue of Ramparts. His thesis was that the United States, unable to discipline itself into facing its internal economic problems, would attempt an external solution. It would try to seize the Arab oil fields, restore its own prosperity, and reduce Europe and Japan to vassalage. It would also run the very real risk of a nuclear war in which the Soviet Union, because of its still fairly primitive society, would be the relative winner.
I gave a press interview in Jidda in early March in which I characterized those who call for war as being criminally in-sane. The interview was widely quoted in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world and Prince Fahd, now the Saudi Crown Prince, said this went a long way toward defusing the issue. Secretary Kissinger in Riyadh on March 19 said again that war for economic reasons was impossible, that our policy was “cooperation not confrontation*” His statement was quoted in the Arab world, but was lost in the United States in the flurry over the deterioration of Southeast Asia.
*NOTE: (1) REMEMBER AMBASSADOR AKINS SAYING ABOVE: THAT WHILST HE MAY BE BRAVE HE WAS NOT SUICIDAL: AT THAT TIME, 1975, AMBASSADOR AKINS WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT IT WAS KISSINGER WHO HAD PROPOSED THE IDEA OF “WAR FOR OIL” AND IT WAS KISSINGER WHO HAD ALSO BRIEFED THE PRESS. (2) AS HE POINTED OUT IN HIS FAX AND E-MAIL LETTERS TO ME IN FEBRUARY 1998. IN SPITE OF IT HAVING “A LOW CLASSIFICATION” IT STILL TOOK 5 YEARS – FROM 1998 TO AUGUST 2003 IN ORDER TO GET A COPY.
Enclosure No 1 Jidda A 23 Page 5 of 34
The feeling of unease in the Middle East continued. True, the polls and letters to the editors in the United States strongly condemned the invasion idea, and the articles by Stone and McCarthy were favorably quoted. Yet even those who opposed a war for oil assumed that it was a possibility. Some even publicly expressed their fears that the United States was preparing its people for a new military adventure. This fear, unfortunately, was shared by many in: the Middle East -some even in Saudi Arabia.
There was another flurry of excitement in the Middle East – In particularly in Saudi Arabia - at the time of the death of King Faisal. We were alleged to be alerting the Seventh Fleet, to be preparing our citizens for evacuation, to be spreading the story of disturbances in the Kingdom in order to justify occupation of the oil fields to prevent sabotage. No matter that there had been no disturbances.
The main reason for this continuing fear of war is almost certainly that there has been no strong, detailed condemnation of the invasion concept by a member of the American -Administration, no analysis of why it could bring only disaster to the United States and to the world, and why - it could not be considered for both moral and practical reasons. This is what I intend to do.
Enclosure No 1 Jidda A 23 Page 6 of 34
II. The Flaws in the Basic Premise - and the Moral Issue
There can be no doubt that the sudden rise in oil prices by 400 percent has contributed to the world’s current economic ills. But it is conveniently forgotten that the world faced a serious inflation before the massive oil price increases of 1974; that unemployment was large and growing, that wages were growing faster than productivity;’ in short, that we were living beyond our means. Imported energy helped our economic expansion for over twenty years. ‘It enabled us to escape the consequences of increasing real wages faster than productivity increased. Oil was very cheap. Its price, even in current dollars, declined from 1950 to 1972 and its 1972 price in constant dollars was half that of the early l950’s. The oil producing states increased their incomes only by allowing production to grow faster than real prices declined. All of the oil producers, by 1970, had come to realize that their oil reserves were finite, in some cases quite small; all could see-when their oil’ production would Start to decline and all bad begun to think of how to increase income per barrel. All that is;- except Saudi Arabia which was and is unique. It is a truism to state that oil is a wasting asset, that once used it is gone forever. But most consumers chose to ignore-this; they compared the profit on a barrel of oil with the’ profit on a bushel of wheat and they seemed convinced that the comparison was valid. The oil producers, on their side, believed they must maximize their income, invest their money and prepare to face the post-oil age. With the shortages caused by the Arab oil boycott in late 1973, all OPEC countries saw what the world would pay for oil. The Shah of Iran announced that OPEC would no longer subsidize the industria1ized West. The era of cheap oil, he said, was over forever.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 7 of 34
OPEC took advantage of its new knowledge to increase oil prices, some say to intolerable levels. It would surely have been far better if the world had agreed to a gradual increase in oil prices, the consumers before 1973 were not willing to consider such ideas. Our professional soothsayers told us oil prices were low of necessity and would go even lower. We believed them and we did nothing to develop alternative sources of energy. But can it be pretended that the current high cost of oil is the sole source of our economic problems? Or can anyone seriously think that a forced reduction of oil prices could miraculously solve all our problems? To think so is to share the fairytale beliefs of certain academicians newly converted to the dubious pleasures of militarism. Alan Greenspan, the President’s chief economic advisor put (it) very well recently: We had inflation before the oil price increases and we would still have it if oil prices decline. Inflation, he said, is a productivity problem, not a commodity problem. No discussion of price gouging would be complete without some reference to our own role in food exports. The same magazine which in March carried an article calling for the immediate invasion of Saudi Arabia carried in its (1975) February issue an article which, asserted that our monopoly of food exports was more complete than OPEC’s in oil and much more damaging to the underdeveloped countries. Wheat prices go up by 400 percent; rice by 300 percent; soybeans by as much and we speak only of “market forces” of supply and demand” but the effect on the consumer is as brutal as that caused by any cartel. Even if oil prices were as crucial to the world’ s economy as is pretended, and even if food prices or declining productivity were irrelevant, could we seriously propose invasion, an act of international brigandage so contrary to our national traditions and repugnant to our religious heritage?
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 8 of 34
Senator -. James McClure Of Idaho asked in January if our Viet-Nam venture would have been justified in the eyes of the New’ Hawks if we had said we had gone to South Asia to appropriate its rice to feed the world’s poor. To say that we have the right simply to take oil or any commodity because its price is too high, as our authors have suggested, threatens the relatively stable political order the United States has hammered together since the second World War. After a successful seizure of the Arabian oil fields - why not foreign deposits of bauxite, lead, zinc, tin, chrome, and other resources in short supply? Even renewable resources such, as rubber, cotton and food, would seem fair game. To postulate that.- the United States and only the, United States would be allowed dispensation for such imperialistic action wou1d be naive. Yet one who purports to be a “defense consultant” concluded his article calling for invasion of Arabia by asking why we needed to spend $85 billion a year for our Armed Forces if we were not going to try to get something out of them. Presumably he had never heard of Defense or of Deterrence.
There are ample recent historical precedents for aggression of this sort, but they are not ones we should be quick to quote. Japan went to war to establish its “Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere”; that .is, to secure access to land, tin, rubber, rice and oil. Hitler said had a right to Poland because the efficient Germans could use the land more effectively than the “lazy Slavs.” Hitler also found the concentration of wealth in the hands of Jewish merchants an intolerable burden to Aryan pride. While neither the Japanese nor the Nazis pretended to benefit the entire world, the parallels between their actions these new proposals are close enough to be uncomfortable.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 9 of 34
Senator McClure commented on his amazement at the call for invasion and wonders why it had not been soundly denounced in the United States, particularly by those who deplored our Viet-Nam war. Why, he asked is every newspaper in the country not beseiged with letters decrying the immorality of such an idea’ He and others have commented on the curious transformation of Viet-Nam doves into Middle East hawks. The entire idea of invasion by the United States should be laid to rest solely by the moral argument. There should be a wave of indignation, of outrage that the idea considered and even justified by respected intellectuals. Invasion for economic reasons is something one would expect to read only in standard communist propaganda describing the moral bankruptcy of America. Unfortunately, the idea continues to be discussed; and the conclusion in some parts of the world - at least Europe and the Middle East - is that someone may be trying to soften up the American people for a new war, that American morality - at least as publicly expressed - has been blunted. If such is the case, and I am certain it is not, then it would still be necessary for us to examine carefully how United States interests would be affected by such a war before advocacy of war be translated into policy.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 10 of 34
III. The Reactions of Others to-Invasion
The plan of the New Hawks is to occupy- the oilfields-of Saudi ‘Arabia. Some include Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait in their targets, but clearly these states are peripheral. — Saudi Arabia, it is argued,’ would be quite sufficient by itself to satisfy our energy needs. Saudi Arabia after ‘the seizure of its oil fields, might be allowed enough income to pay for its essential imports, but the rest of the revenue from the oil sales would be distributed among the poor of the world. This Robin Hood aspect of aggression allegedly would win us the tacit if not the overt’ support of the under developed world. And the resulting low oil prices would bring us the applause of the developed world ‘from Western Europe to Japan.
To suggest that any nation would applaud invasion because of the conscience money we would pay (from someone-else’s pocket) assumes its inability to draw some obvious conclusions. The Arabs and Iran have been generous in eco-nomic assistance far more so than the U.S. has ever been in per capita terms. In 1974 Saudi Arabia gave to Arabs for arms and reconstruction and to other states more assistance - a total of $3 billion - than did the United States with a GNP 50 times greater. In addition, last year it loaned $2 billion to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In fact, total OPEC assistance has been at least as great as whatever the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) could hope from oil sales at new rock-bottom prices. The direct total OPEC aid, according to an OECD study, has almost precisely offset the current higher oil prices to the LDCs, and the several billions given to the IBRD and the IMF have eased the burden still further on the LDCs. Nonetheless, the aid has not been uniformly distributed and it cannot be denied that the high oil prices have hurt some countries badly. They still expect OPEC to assist them and OPEC would be well advised to implement fully the enlarged aid program it has discussed.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 11 of 34
After an invasion for oil, the questions every producer of raw materials would have to ask himself would be: (1) How’ much of this new source of petroleum wealth will I get? He might just conclude it would be insignificant; and (2) When will the United States decide my bauxite, cobalt, or copper would justify its appropriation? He could conclude it would be quite soon. In any case the support of the LCD’s for invasion would be minimal; they are too recently freed- of colonial-masters to welcome the emergence of a new colonialism, no matter how elevated it would claim its motives to be. And, as irrational and irritating as it may seem to us, most LDCs really seem to enjoy vicariously the new strength of OPEC; If OPEC does not help them soon with their financial problems they could, however ever, change, their views quite completely.
The opposition of the other Arab states seems to have been ignored in the invasion plans. Many of the many not be-particularly well disposed to Saudi Arabia or its leaders, but it is inconceivable that Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, and Iraq would not do everything they could to frustrate an American invasion of another Arab country. Part of our folklore about the Arabs is that they do not always behave rationally; they sometimes cut off their noses to spite their faces. There is some truth in this. But if our plan is to destroy them, there would be little incentive for them to show any restraint whatsoever. We will come back to this later.
The reaction of other OPEC countries – Indonesia, Venezuela, Nigeria – would be hostile. While they might not be invaded, once the battle for natural resources began, there would be no guarantee of their own immunity from attack. And no OPEC country would react to an invasion of Saudi Arabia by giving away its natural resources merely to curry our favor. A more logical reaction would be for them to sell their oil for whatever they could get $25 - $30 a barrel and then to do everything in their power - to insure that the United States did not flood the world with cheap Saudi oil. To suggest, as do some of our author, that we would get full cooperation from Iran in such a military venture is also extraordinarily naive. The Shah of Iran wishes to restore his country ancient grandeur and he has a good chance of success. But to achieve this goal Iran will need to sell its oil at or near its present level. If the avowed or the implicit purpose of invasion of Saudi Arabia would be to break OPEC, to drive oil prices down to $2 or. $1 a barrel or perhaps even lower, Iran could do nothing but cooperate with the Arabs in opposing the U.S. landings.
One of the most fanciful of the invasion ideas has been the admission that Iran would try to come to Saudi Arabia’s defense and the assertion that the Iranian military forces could be paralyzed simply by allowing key American advisors to go on vacation the day before the landings. This assumes the Iranians would be both too stupid to notice what was happening and too incompetent to act without their American advisors. No one who knows the Iranians - whatever else he may think of them - has ever suggested that they are stupid. While no one pretends that the Iranian Army and Air Force are the most powerful in the world, they are at least capable of mining the Straits of Hormuz and of giving the Saudis support against the landings of American troops - all without their American advisors. The proposal to buy the Shah off by giving him Kuwait is scarcely worth considering. It’s not ours to give; it’s not the Shah’s to take and even if he had it, he would be forced to sell its oil for a’ very, low price - scarcely enough to- maintain a quarter of his current development program.
Enclosure No. 3 Jidda A-23 Page 13 of 34
It is assumed that neither the Saudis nor the Iranians would turn to the Soviet Union for assistance. Neither likes the communists; both fear the Soviet Union. But if the United States proved to be not the ally and friend they had counted on, then we must count on an immediate and total reversal of their policy. Both, in order to protect themselves from devastation, would expect the Soviet Union to offer protection. They would, of course, recognize the dangers in accepting it but dealing with the Russians would still give them a chance of survival, whereas the Americans would have demonstrated themselves to be the active enemy.
Can we assume, as our authors do, that Russia would refrain from making an offer? Hardly. The Russians could not afford merely to stand by in Iraq and click their tongues at American perfidy and expect to win the acclaim of the underdeveloped world for their moderation. Their support would have to be visible and effective if they were not to be exposed and ridiculed as paper, tigers. And who is to suppose that they would want to remain uninvolved when the prize of control over Middle East oil or the consolation of depriving the West of its oil would not only be available but. would be proferred to them? Russian support need not be great troops - volunteers - in Saudi Arabia or Iraq to hamper the landings would be easy enough to provide. Delivering a few rockets to guerrillas and laying a few mines in the Straits of Hormuz would be even easier.
One author has suggested that the Russians now look with considerable distaste at the emergence of an anti-communist, conservative, monarchist bloc in the Persian Gulf. They would welcome its destruction by the United States That, in itself, would be sufficient reward for Russian restraint. This, of’ course, brings up the question of why the United States would be interested in destroying this conservative anti-communist bloc. But it is not answered by the author.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 14 of 34
An interesting aspect of the invasion proposal is that we do not talk about invading any country in the Middle East commonly classed as unfriendly, not Iraq and not even Libya, for that might provoke a Russian retaliation. We consider attacking only one of our closest friends or, as some put it, our “clients.”
The world-wide reaction to the call for invasion of Saudi Arabia, if it is ever taken seriously, would surely be that friendship with the United States is more dangerous than its enmity; that the close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States which has proven so profitable to America would not protect Saudi Arabia but would ensure its demise. The Saudis themselves, If they conclude the threat is real, would review their ‘special relationship’ with us. Some Saudis are, in fact, worried. But those who know what they could and would do to frustrate the success of any invasion attempt are more relaxed. These Saudis assume the United States is not yet afflicted with a drive to national suicide, that the inflammatory articles are either designed to advance the interests of the Soviet Union by destroying the influence of the United States with the Middle East, or are inspired by anti-Semitism in its Arab rather than Jewish variation.
Even Australia and New Zealand might question the value of American friendship and move closer to the USSR or. China. Then, of course, there is Canada - our closest friend. We have great economic’ interests there. We have intimate political, social, and military ties with Canada. And there is the famous 3,000-mile undefended frontier. One might paraphrase the professor who wanted to get some good out of the Pentagon by asking why we made the 100-year effort to lull -
Enclosure No. I Jidda A-23 Page 15 of 34
the Canadians into a sense of security if we do not ever intend to take advantage of it. The same reasoning that would read us to occupy Saudi Arabia could more logically take us north of our border. Canada a1ready has announced that in three years it will suspend oil exports to the United States. It would then have a considerable shut-in oil production capacity which we could readily use. Its tar sands at Athabasca would a1so add measurably to our petroleum wealth. But it would be Canada’s other resources - water above all which would make its invasion more attractive than invasion of Saudi Arabia.
Enclosure No. I Jidda A-23 Page 16 of 34
IV. The Invasion and its Costs
We could not invade Saudi Arabia without having to face unacceptable military and political opposition, and without the oil fields being unacceptably damaged.
Any invasion plan for the Middle East ideally would assume at least minimal cooperation from Europe. But can we seriously believe we could use the Azores or Greece or Italy or Germany to support such an attack now? France, Germany and Japan already have concluded purchase arrangements for Saudi oil. A dozen other countries are preparing to reach similar agreements. All of them could be expected to react adversely to any such American adventure. We would have to expect to be isolated and our invasion would have to be launched directly from the United States; it would have to be carried out by long-range aircraft stopping only in Israel -- our “forward base” in the area.
We have always maintained that Israel was not our colony, could never play the role of America’s agent in the Middle East. Israel has taken precisely the same position. Its support of an attempted invasion by us would end any hope it would have of successful integration with its Arab and Middle Eastern neighbors. Turkey and Iran would surely end their relationships with Israel and its regional isolation would be complete. In return for its support Israel would be justified in exacting the maximum in U.S. support for its own positions. The U.S. commitment to Israel would then be total and permanent. And Israel might be our only ally, as invasion for economic goals would surely leave NATO in shambles.
The basic assumption of the proponents of the invasion is that it could be organized quickly and quietly, before world reaction could be brought to bear against the United States, before there could be any organized resistance and most importantly before there would be extensive sabotage of the oil fields. It is claimed that the occupation of the oi1 fields would be safe end almost instantaneous firing of the oil wells is dismissed as unimportant; we are told all the world’s fire fighters are concentrated in Texas, and could be brought to the spot with no difficulty. Finally, it is confidently asserted, the oil would probably be flowing again in 30 days - or 90 days at the outside. The parallel between Arabia and Geku in Russia or Ploesti in Rumania is considered apt by the proponents of invasion. In fact, it is said the Arabs are less capable of sabotage than the Germans - less capable even than the Russians in destructive talents.
That the United States could mount an invasion as quickly as the would-be agressors pretend is questionable. To gather a force in Germany without its being detected is unlikely even if the Germans permitted it; to organize the invasion in the United States to fly the troops to Israel without their being noted is inconceivable. –
We do have a powerful military machine but our record of secrecy is not good, and long before the operation actually began, the word would get to the Arabs - via the Soviet Union or Iran, pr even the American press, if not through their own intelligence resources. Precautionary measures for the destruction of the oil fields have already been taken in Saudi Arabia, and before the first plane was over the country destruction would have begun. No, the surprise element cannot be taken for granted even less now than before, as a result of the frequent articles and the mere frequent comments in the United States press and television about the invasion.
Enclosure No 1. Jidda A-23 Pages 18 & 19 of 34
Some thought is given by the would-be invaders to protecting the American Citizens in the oil city of Dhahran -about 5,000 of them - although their safety surely could not be assured. No mention is made of the other 10,000 Americans in the rest of Saudi Arabia the tens of thousands of American workers, businessmen and tourists in other parts of the Arab world. Arabs, particularly Saudis, are traditionally hospitable and generous to guests; but if an American invasion force were trying to annihilate their country, the lives of a substantial number of these Americans would be lost.
The problem of maintaining the military force and what-ever civilian workers that come to the oil fields would be formidable; they would be surrounded by a thousand miles of desert on all sides but one; they would have to be sustained by planes, flying over air space where Arabs would be advised and assisted by the Russians. Only to the east would be “open sea”; it would not be in the interest of any of the surrounding countries, least of all Iran, to allow it to remain open to our ships. Harassment of ships by land-based planes from Iraq or South Yemen or even by Soviet submarines must be assumed. These factors would not be as negligible as the would-be agressors seem to believe - if indeed they have considered them.
Our academic militarists should know that throughout the Middle East the Arab states - perhaps formally - will be at war with us. Our strategic position in the Mediterranean would be further weakened, Jordan would have to be occupied to assure our air link to Arabia, and our military efforts might be further diffused to defend our flanks. American assets would be nationalized, and the many thousands of Americans in other Arab countries would be in personal danger. Academicians who pretend to military knowledge owe it to their readers, their students and their profession to examine their facts more serious1y before proposing actions which could have disastrous consequences the United States and the world. War is too important to be left to inexperienced social scientists’
Enclosure No. I Jidda A-23 Page 20 of 34
V. Saudi Actions and Reactions
Another crucial error in the invasion plan is the assumption that the Saudi Arabs could do nothing to frustrate the occupation even if they conclude that preparations for invasion were under way.
First of all, no competent soldier believes that the landing of American airborne troops would be as easy and cheap as our professors tell us. The Saudis would have more time than the few hours the New Hawks allow them. And the Saudis would ask for and almost certainly would get support from Arab or Soviet planes or pilots operating from Syrian, Iraqi or Jordanian bases and from the Iranian Air Force in easy range from just across the Persian Gulf.
Of some considerable importance, are the air defense missiles which guard the oil installations at the oil center of Dhahran. Effective electronic suppression or blanketing of the area would be difficult, and the Saudis have shown excellent aptitude in maiming and operating the missile sites. While they have not always shown diligence in maintaining them, they are likely to be vigilant once there are signs of an impending invasion.
The new imperialists forget, if they have even known, that the Saudi oil fields are now run by Saudi Arabs -14,000 of them with en average service of 15 years. Far from being unskilled and incompetent, many of them are highly trained in the United States. They are fully aware of every aspect of the operation of the oil fields, fully aware of their vulnerability, and they have precise knowledge of what can be done to put them out of commission. They could do this efficiently and easily.
Oil installations and pipes at sea. for example, are protected from corrosion by mounting on them a slight negative charge. By mistake, these electrical charges were reversed a few years ago and the pipes were made slightly positive. In 16 hours they were put out of commission. This presumably would be done on purpose as soon as an invasion attempt was launched. But it really is not necessary to look at anything as exotic as this.
Pipelines at sea - and on land - are vulnerable enough to mere conventional destruction - simply blowing them up. Every oil field in its normal operation has large quantities of explosives ready and ideally suited to pipe destruction. The lines could be cut in hundreds of spots. To say that the invaders should carry with them large diameter pipe recognizes the problem, but no one says where the pipe would come from, nor can they. There is no large supply of large diameter or even medium diameter pipe available in the world today. Even if there were, the replacement of the pipelines system would-take years. It should be noted that --Saudi Arabia has somewhat more than the few dozen miles of pipe one of the New Hawks asserted: it has 4,000 miles of large diameter pipelines, and over 33,000 miles of smaller diameter connecting pipe.
Then let us look at the refinery which would have to be secured, as our New Hawks tell us. If they knew anything about refinery operation they would know it could be put permanently out of commission in a few hours by running it full blest and cutting off. its oil charge - rather like a tea kettle on a hot fire after all the water has boiled off. In a short time a few hours - it would burn itself out. The 200,000 barrel a day refinery on Bahrain would be shut down almost as an afterthought, as it gets two- thirds of its crude through a submarine pipeline from Saudi Arabia.
Enclosure No. I Jidda A-23 Page 22 & 23 of 34
The vital storage tanks and the liquified petroleum gas facilities could be set on fire in a few hours and replacing them, even under ideal circumstances, would take two years. The gas turbine generators - be completely destroyed by an expert in minutes and their replacement would take years.
The 54 gas-oil separation plants (GOSPs), where the pressure on the oil is gradually reduced, releasing its gas and allowing the oil to be shipped, are extraordinarily sensitive and extraordinarily vulnerable. They are now heavily guarded by the Saudi National Guard against possible sabotage but of the National Guard supported sabotage rather than trying to prevent it, these GOSPs could be destroyed and their replacement would take years. They are scattered throughout the oil producing area and securing them would be an impossible task for the invaders.
All Saudi oil is exported through only three long piers which could be destroyed with ease, although if material and workers were at hand they could probably be put back into operation within a year or so and all Saudi oil goes through narrow sea lanes which could be blocked by sinking a few super tankers in them.
Then, there is the question of the wells themselves. They could be fired - and easily. To contend, as several of our authors do, that the fires could be put out just as easily is nonsense mouthed only by those who have never seen an-oil well fire. Fortunately there have rarely been two major oil well fires in the world at one time. The number of fire fighters specialized in this type of blaze is so limited that when there are two, one has to wait while the other is extinguished, Oil well fires frequently burn for months in spite of frantic efforts of the field owners to put them out. A relative unimportant well at Abu Rudeis in Israeli occupied - Sinai was accidentally ignited by an Israeli shell last year, and it took almost three months to extinguish it. What if there were ten fires or a hundred? A hundred fires, burning in the giant Ghawar field and fed by gas pressure of the field itself, could last for years until the field was exhausted putting it back into operation would be difficult if not impossible. Those who seek World War II parallels should know Baku’s production was about one percent of Saudi Arabia’s today and because each well produced so little the field was much less susceptible to sabotage. Ploesti, likewise, was incomparably below the production level of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.
A final apocalyptical measure which the Saudis could easily take would be the destruction of the Berri field - offshore in the Persian Gulf. The field pressure is enormous and keeping it under control can under normal circumstances is one of the oil company’s most pressing concerns. If it were allowed to run freely each of its 35 wells would spew 100,000 barrels of sour, high sulfur oil - a total of 3.5 million barrels or seven Torry Canyons’ every day into the shallow, confined waters of the Persian Gulf every day for at least six months, probably a year and possibly two. preventing its ignition would be impossible and all traffic in the Gulf would be stopped indefinitely. What would happen to Iran and Pakistan, countries lying downwind of this fire, is not known. The carbon monoxide, the sulphur oxides and the heat could make life unpleasant and perhaps impossible in this area.
Given the effectiveness of the other actions that could be taken and the length of tine the oil fields could be kept out of production by less drastic and less permanent actions, the on-shore wells probably would not be fired and the Berri field probably would not be released. Once sanity were restored to the world, the fields could again, after several years, be produced. It would, however, be dangerous for us to assume that the Arabs under all circumstances, would refrain from using ultimate weapon. When they are faced with “strangulation” they too could be expected to take the strongest and most drastic measures: they too would have little mere to lose.
VI. The Length of the Cutoff end the Consequences
The Arab employees of the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) believe, and their American colleagues concur, that it would be at least two to three years before anything near the present production levels could be resumed after the destruction of the oil field facilities, even if the local population cooperated in the restoration and there were an adequate functioning work force on hand. The shortage of oilfield equipment in the world today is notorious. While it must be assumed that if there were successful occupation of Eastern Arabia the restoration of its fields would get highest priority - higher than U.S. domestic needs and higher than the North Sea - it would be two and probably close to three years before the equipment, much of which would be unique to Saudi Arabia, could be built, brought out and installed. If the invaders withdrew immediately, it might be possible to achieve these ideal conditions. But resumed operation under military occupation would be such mere difficult. The New Hawks assume a docile local work force which could be handled simply by increasing its wages. This again is an incredible assumption; that Arab workers have no patriotism, indeed no interest other than money that they would participate in the destruction of their country merely for an increase in salary. This shows a lack of knowledge of the people who live and work in Saudi Arabia; But perhaps this proposal is mere camouflage, for the alternative solution is always mentioned drive them into the desert. A tactic similar to the one Hitler applied in occupied areas of Poland but not one that should commend itself to late 20th century Americans.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 25/26 of 34
Bringing in American technicians to run the fields in war-time conditions would not be as easy as the Hawks pretend. They would have to be taken from jobs in the United States or e1sewhere - probably by drafting them into service, for it would be war. And they would have to replace the entire Saudi work force. Then there would be the questions of how would they be maintained; where would their food and their water come from and where would they get their equipment! The talk of securing Dhahran and the giant Ghawar field sounds simple but it ignores the fact that oil in Arabia is produced over a large area, from Kuwait - four hundred miles to the south - and all of this would have to be occupied. Ghawar itself is 150 miles long, but by itself it would be insufficient for the demands placed on it. Occupying Kuwait and Qatar as well, as one author suggested, would make matters even more difficult. Concealing guerrillas in this large stretch of open territory is dismissed by the proponents of war as impossible. Again they are wrong. While Eastern Arabia is fairly flat and has few trees, it is far from being featureless there are oases, there are scrub bushes, there are gullies, there are many places where guerrillas can be hidden. And we must assume that they will be given the full support and advice by countries as diverse as North Viet-Nam and Iran.
It should be noted that in Viet—Nam it was frequently impossible for our low-flying aircraft to spot guerrillas hiding in the daylight in open fields and in paddies. In Saudi Arabia the difficulties in finding lost parties in the desert are notorious even with a concerted effort, and with those who are lost exerting every effort to be noticed. No, the invaders would have to consider total expulsion of the million inhabitants, construction, and patrolling of a thousand mile fence from the Persian Gulf near Kuwait around the Saudi oil fields and installations and back to the Gulf, they would have to import their entire labor force and ruthlessly exterminate every Arab who appeared - a process revolting to most Americans.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 26/27/28 of 34
Of course, even if this could be done it would still not shorten the two or three year shut-down. If protection against sabotage were not complete - and it is impossible to believe that it could be - then the shut-down would be even longer. In fact, given the inevitable hostility of the country and its allies it is difficult to believe production could ever be brought back to present levels.
We have spoken about a move against the Arabs if we are being strangled, but what if the world is facing strangulation because of action caused by the United States? What would happen to the economies of Western Europe and Japan - or the United States for that matter - when the world is deprived not only of Saudi oil but of all oil passing through the Straits of Hormuz? Who would ship through the straits in war conditions and how would he accomplish it? Perhaps some high priced Iranian oil would be available (assuming the Saudi off shore fields were not destroyed), but even that could not be counted on in a protracted war situation. And how much oil under these circumstances would be available from Iraq, Abu Dhabi or Qatar? Could we count on any oil from the Arab Mediterranean oil producers? Could Europe or Japan survive without half of their energy and two-thirds of their oil? What would be their prospects of resisting a Russian takeover? Would they want to? American friendship would have proven to be en expensive luxury.
Presumably the International Energy Agency sharing agreement would immediately come into force. But it would not be a case of Europe and Japan diverting their imports to a boycotted United States. The United States with two-thirds of its oil produced at home would be relatively well off. Europe and Japan cou1d demand that we share our oil wealth Unfortunately for them we could not, for there is no way to bring domestic oil to port for export. All we could do is direct the wor1d’s remaining oil - from Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia - to them and this would mean an even greater disaster for our eastern seacoast for it would be almost totally deprived of petroleum energy. This is a solution unlikely to promote international or even domestic tranquility Our international isolation would very likely be complete. If we would then accept retreat to our own borders our days as a great nation would end. The alternative, to which we could then find ourselves drawn would be even worse: nuclear war.
Enclosure No. 1 Jidda A-23 Page 29/30/31 of 34
VII. The Alternatives to War
This Armageddon scenario is postulated because it is alleged there are no alternatives. It is alleged that capital accumulation in the OPEC countries. - will be so enormous the world will not be able to adjust to it. The New Hawks heap scorn on those who say the problem can be handled in the context of normal trade, banking and investment Yet the alternatives to war are in fact straightforward P and not at all esoteric. They would entail some transfer of real wealth, but this would not be the first time in history this had happened, They could entail some temporary leveling off in increasing standards of living, but this need be only of short duration. Charles Schultz, new with the Brookings Institute, wrote in the Washington Post the end of January that “over the Seventies we might have expected real consumption per capita to grow by 30 percent; the higher oil prices, when fully paid for, will reduce this to 27 or 28 percent. Important yes. But worth a Middle East War?” Robert Rocsa, Carroll Wilson and three non-Americans, in an excellent article in the January issue of Foreign Affairs, pointed out that high oil prices are a form of forced saving - a means of capital accumulation - and they suggest how this could be put into productive use in Europe, Japan, and the underdeveloped world. A proposal for an OPEC mutual fund would bring the money into the areas where it was needed, would supply capital for new ventures, would create a new wealth, and we would have a no-lose situation. Professor Richard Cooper of Yale even thinks there is an excellent chance “this second great Arab eruption into Western history will, in the end, leave both the West and the Middle East more sound and secure than ever before.
The Arabs would profit through their investments and the developed world wou1d also profit through a renovation or the expansion of its industry and increased employment. Some of the new American industry might be partially owned by foreigners, but this would not be a new experience in our history. Nor should it be objections: a country which itself has made such massive foreign investments.
The figures of surplus OPEC funds have been grossly exaggerated. We have heard of capital accumulations or unspent money of $1.2 - $1.6 trillion in the next decade. The most recent U.S. Treasury studies indicate it will be more in the order of $300 billion. Some of this will be invested in the United States, some will be invested elsewhere. if we are lucky enough to entice half of it to the United States, i.e., $150 billion, this would amount to less than 4 percent of the $4 trillion of new investment we need in the next decade.
While some OPEC countries night be able to gain positions of influence in a few companies, their accumulated capital scarcely would permit a “take over of American industry.” Some American companies do not find Arab or OPEC capital to be in any way offensive or dangerous and are now trying to get Saudi capital into the States. While relatively little has come yet, there is no doubt it will come unless legal obstacles are placed in its way.
Saudi Arabia has already agreed this year to place enough in Treasury totes and FNMA issues to cover more than half our balance of payment deficit - scarcely action of an enemy country. I would not venture to say how much longer they will continue their investment in view of the provocative statements and articles coming out of the United States. Not very long if the invasion threats are taken seriously. I hope, however, we can end now all speculation that the United States could consider invasion of an oil producer merely to bring down oil prices - or indeed for any other reason than actual “strangulation” in its precise meaning: that is, we are dying and we take desperate action, no matter how dangerous, to save ourselves from death. Scarcely a description of the gasoline shortages of the winter of 1973-74, or of the economic situation in the world today - even if our problems could all be ascribed to high oil prices.
Enclosure No. I Jidda A-23 Page 32/33/ & 34
There are several crucial questions which need to be asked about all those who are advocating confrontation economic or military. We need to know their motives. Why are they proposing risking the destruction of the Western alliance, even nuclear war? Why are they advocating a policy in which the only conceivable winners would be the two great communist nations? And neither of them could “win” a nuclear war, any more than could we. Why the concentration on the Arabs as the enemies when other countries in OPEC have been fully as anxious to maximize their income from oil? And why the concentration on Saudi Arabia, one of our closest friends in the Middle East? What interest do the advocates of agression have in damaging relations with the Arabs in general and Saudi Arabia in particular? And why do they so resolutely reject the cooperative approach which has been advocated and described by Secretaries Kissinger and Simon, and by Messrs Roosa, Wilson and Cooper? Is it simply to deprive the Arabs of their “oil weapon,” and remove pressure on Israel? This hardly seems possible, as even Israel could not “win” in such a world catastrophe. Perhaps these New Hawks have no motive at all; their guiding light may be simply malice and stupidity.
If the New Hawks are trying to frighten the OPEC countries into submission or into a dramatic reduction in their oil prices, they have not succeeded. If they are simply trying to disturb or destroy American relations with OPEC, with the Arabs and especially with Saudi Arabia, they have been somewhat more successful - primarily because, until now, there has been no detailed rebuttal of the war call. And they also seem to have put a fright into all these in OPEC as well as the developed world — who know the ultimate victor in such an adventure would be Russian imperialism but nonetheless believe invasion is possible simply because they question America’s sanity.
Fortunately, the world can relax. The arguments for invasion fall of their own weight. Those who understand the difficulty in preparing a major secret operation are appalled at this call to war; they are joined by those who know how an oil field is operated and who know the ease of its destruction end the difficulties in its restoration and by responsible political scientists who know what would happen in a Europe or a Japan deprived of oil for several years. In short, everyone who knows anything of the military, of our system of alliances, of the difficulties in producing oil after oilfield installation has been destroyed, concludes that talk of invasion for economic reason must be one gigantic bluff perpetrated by writers of distorted and immoral imagination, of varied degrees of sanity and with varied motives but with no authority.
The United States is governed by moral man of good will. But “morality” is a subjective characteristic and we cannot expect the world to assume the United States, for moral reasons, would recoil from an imperialistic war. Self-interest is more objective and the world should know that we are governed by rational men who are not bent on committing national suicide.
The American public shows no tendency whatsoever to follow the New Hawks to Armageddon. The initial reaction in January to the invasion proposal seems now, to have been one of pure disbelief. It was this troubling silence to which Senator McClure addressed himself. But as the stories of Invasion continued and enlarged, American outrage has grown. If the provocateurs were launching trial balloons, they must have been surprised at the rapidity with which they were pricked. Let us now put this story to rest. We should not forget it, as it illustrates how fragile peace is; and it illustrates how we could be drawn into another disaster for “noble” motives. This time however, we’ll look more critically at the consequences than we did in Viet-Nam.
United States Embassy. Jidda. Saudi Arabia. 1975.
[NOTE: THIS IS A SCANNED, ELECTRONIC TEXT, OCR VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO D.M. PIDCOCK IN AUGUST 2003. ONLY THE PAGE LAYOUTS ARE DIFFERENT. ALL ORIGINALS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST]