U.S. presence in the Mid East has been designed to stabilize the region and keep the oil flowing. The removal of Saddam Hussein who had waged war on Iran and then Kuwait was seen as a way of stabilizing the area and giving a warning to other rogue states. Unfortunately it has not worked out that way. Iran has seen its main enemy (Saddam Hussein) removed and is now emboldened to develop nuclear weapons because it is unlikely that an overstretched U.S. would risk invading Iran. U.S. and British public opinion favours an early withdrawal from Iraq never mind a war with Iran. So the U.S. and British policy (backed by most of the Western leaders despite not publicly showing their support) of stopping Mid East countries and sects from destroying each other as well as the oil infrastructure, is now in disarray. If the present last ditch attempt at bringing peace to Iraq fails, any future intervention may be impossible, especially if atomic bombs are obtained by one or more of the Mid East countries.
Middle East Turmoil could hit Food Supples
Extreme Islamic fundamentalists are now at war with the West in general and the USA in particular. This is acknowledged by Western and Islamic leaders alike. Unfortunately, Muslims are also almost at war with each other. Civil war between Sunni and Shi’ites is a distinct possibility. Mid East conflict is possibly a more immediate threat to Western oil supplies and therefore to food production than Peak Oil. The extreme importance of Mid East oil supplies for the continued functioning of the Western and now Eastern economies and food supplies is very well understood but rarely discussed, probably because the consequences of a large and sustained reduction in supplies from that region are too disastrous to contemplate. Turmoil in the region would also disrupt supplies from the increasingly important Caspian Sea region. In the past, Sunnis have been politically dominant and the Shi’ites were generally underprivileged. Now that there is a Shi’ite government in Iraq as well as in Iran, old hatreds are emerging. Iran is meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine and seems determined to possess nuclear weapons which is causing alarm in Arab areas. Sunni-Shi’ite violence is increasing throughout the area and in to Pakistan.
Troops stay in Iraq because of Oil
In The Independent, Kathey Marks reported on how the Australian Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson has admitted that oil was a major factor in the governments decision to keep troops in Iraq.
That’s no surprise to me.
Anti-war protesters have long said that the real reason behind the Iraq war was oil. They seem surprised that our leaders should think that attempting to secure the future flow of oil from the Middle East was worth going to war over. But looking at it from their point of view, Saddam Hussein had already invaded Iran and then Kuwait. Only quick action by the US prevented an invasion of Saudi Arabia. He obviously would have liked to dominate the entire oil-rich region. Regime change in Iraq was intended to stabilise the region and act as a warning to other dictators. It didn’t work out well and the area is more volatile then ever with war between Sunni and Shi’ite countries now a possibility. If there were a pull out of US and other Western troops from the area, the whole region could be engulfed in conflict and oil supplies severely disrupted for years. As over 60% of the world’s remaining oil is in the region, the world economy would suffer. Food production - now totally dependent on oil - would be severely effected and as world food stocks are now very low, panic-buying and hording would add to the problem.
Western leaders know that we simply can’t now manage without Middle East oil, so instead of taking measures to reduce consumption and make us less dependent, they rely on military muscle.
Would Al Gore have been a better US President for the Environment?
When George W. Bush narrowly won the presidential election, many people suspected it would be a setback to the fight against global warming. But it’s only now with hindsight that we can grasp the severity of that setback.
We know that both men are concerned about US dependence on imported oil and that a sudden disruption to supplies would devastate the US economy. I’m not sure though if they fully realise what the effect on food supply would be.
Because of Al Gore’s passionate interest in climate change we can assume that he would have taken steps to reduce US oil consumption through tax changes and car fuel consumption legislation. US oil imports would then have started to decline so that at some time in the future it would have been possible to manage on the still huge domestic oil production. Worries about oil security would then have eased so that the never-ending turmoil in the Middle East would no longer have been a direct threat to the well being of the US.
George Bush, of course, has no interest in climate change but is extremely concerned about oil security. His response was not to reduce demand but to try to secure supply.
The invasion of Iraq was meant not only to establish a friendly, democratic government right in the centre of things, but also act as a warning to other countries in the region that they should behave or the same could happen to them.
Unfortunately, things have worked out differently; the region is now in danger of the civil war between Shi’ite and Sunny Muslims in Iraq spreading to engulf the entire area. The American public is in no mood to become even more deeply involved and a troop pull-out could be needed before too long leaving the Middle East to its own devices.
So George Bush has made oil supply less secure then ever, and done nothing to fight climate change. A very poor result.
Jihad may start Peak Food
With world food supplies becoming tighter each year and the West being unable to produce food without oil and gas, we should consider the effect Jihad may have on oil supplies and therefore food supplies.
Jihad or Holy War is funded by oil and is very likely to cause a shortage of oil.
Wahabism, an extreme branch of Islam is Saudi based. A strange alliance was formed between the Royal family and the clerics so that the clerics could continue to teach extremism while the royals rule the land. This may well backfire against the royals as the extremists aim for an Islamic state in Saudi, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Jihadists are focused on the destruction of the Infidel world and bringing back the Caliphate, a new superstate above the sovereignties of all Arab or Muslim countries. The oil money flowing into Saudi is allowing the clerics to spread the Jihadi doctrine throughout the world.
Many people in the West imagine that extremists are a very tiny minority in the Muslim world, but now the Madrassas (religious schools) in Saudi, Pakistan and elsewhere are brainwashing children of an impressionable age.
The Jihadists know that they cannot defeat the West by conventional warfare or even by more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11. Security is now much tighter, but in any case such acts only do superficial damage. They know too well that to bring the West to its knees they would need to deny us the oil and gas that built our wealth and on which our civilisation now depends.
As we cannot now produce food without oil and gas, any large or prolonged reduction in supplies would create chaos in the food industry which the Jihadists would welcome.
Energy supplies are bound to be the weapon of choice for these extremists and the arrest of 172 people in Saudi recently accused of planning to blow up oil installations might well have been the start of this.
Our best defence against this would be to take steps to becoming much less dependent on the Middle East by using less oil and gas and finding ways to use the abundant power of the sun in innovative and efficient ways.
Russia using Energy as a Political Weapon
Several European governments including the Baltic states and Poland are very nervous about the emergence of Russia as an Energy Superpower. They say Russia is using its energy as a political weapon and have repeatedly criticized the German-led plans for the trans-Baltic pipeline, which they claim will make EU members to the East more vulnerable to Russian pressure.
At present relations between EU and Russian leaders are at a low point, but some big energy companies from Europe are making their own deals with Gazprom.
The problem is that from past experience, these agreements will not be worth the paper they’re written on should a crisis happen.
As Europe becomes ever more dependent on imported energy to produce food, the reliability of energy suppliers may be a matter of life or death for many Europeans. Since there are no reliable suppliers left we should learn to use less.
Buy Famine in the West Printed Book £6.49 +pp
Buy Famine in the West Ebook £2.99
Twitter
