Robert Newman's History of Oil

While checking out LGF Watch yesterday, which is one of my three [(1)(2)(3)] favorite Islamophobia watchdog blogs, I came across their A little diversion: the history of oil posting. In this, they linked to a very interesting and entertaining (although at times rather vulgar) video entitled Robert Newman's History of Oil, in which American attempts to "bring democracy to the Middle East" are exposed as the lies that they are in a very humorous way.

This video, which is just over 45 minutes in length, points out a few historical tidbits that many people probably are not aware of. First amongst these is the interesting fact that an invasion of Iraq was one of the first actions of the First World War. Indeed, the desire if Imperial Germany to complete the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway, which is discussed in Morris Jastrow's long out-of-print The War and the Bagdad Railway as well as the recently republished A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, was a major cause of international tension just prior to The Great War. Robert Newman makes the point that you won't hear about this in school or read about it in mainstream history books, and I certainly find that to be the case. This is because two of the most well-known books that examine the origins of the First World War, namely the Pulitzer Prize winning account The Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman, and A Peace to End All Peace-although it deals specifically with the Middle East, both fail to even mention the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway at all. Ultimately, however, this should come as no surprise since other rather unsavory incidents in Middle Eastern history, such as the British military's use of poison gas on unruly Arab tribes in Iraq, are often left out of popular history books as well.

We should note, however, that A Peace to End All Peace does confirm Newman's assertion that the British had Middle Eastern oil in mind even prior to general hostilities breaking out in 1914, since page 261 notes that Winston Churchill, who began his stint as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, knew even "before the war" that "the vast quantities of petroleum required in modern warfare had rendered the potential oil resources which were suspected to exist in the Middle East of considerable importance". Indeed, oil was first discovered in the Middle East at Masjid-i Sulayman, Iran, in 1908-although I was unable to find a reference to either the telegram announcing this or anything that came close to the seemingly shoddy translation of Psalm 104:15 that Robert Newman makes in the video.

Anyway, what makes this timing both believable and interesting is that Newman points out why both the British and the Germans were suddenly interested in oil just prior to World War I: They had just recently converted, or were still in the process of converting, their naval warships from coal-burning to oil-burning engines-which can be read about in Naval innovation: from coal to oil. So it seems that not only did demand for petroleum greatly increase because of large numbers of new oil-guzzling navy ships, but oil had instantly become a very much a strategic resource as well. The Germans, it should be noted, not only had no oil resources of their own but were also unable to rely on ocean-going transport since they were never unable to seriously contest the Royal Navy's control of the sea. Due to this, establishing an overland transportation system (i.e. railroad) to the Middle East seemed like not only their best, but their only, option for guaranteeing continued access to oil. In the final analysis, I think we need to be somewhat careful in jumping to conclusions about how much of an impact the building of the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway had in sparking World War One. However, it does serve to demonstrate, together with the military activities that took place in and around Iraq as soon as the Britain realized there was oil there, that controlling strategic resources was something that was very much a concern of Western powers even early in the 20th century.

After presenting all of this, Robert Newman's comedy skit brings up the topic of the coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953-which was masterminded by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of American president Theodore Roosevelt, with the help of Iranian general and former Nazi collaborator Fazlollah Zahedi. This rather un-democratic operation, which was jointly carried out by both British intelligence and the American CIA, was done because Prime Minister Mossadegh had the unheard of idea that Iranian oil should actually belong to the Iranians. Those who are interested in reading the down and dirty details of this glaring example of America's Machiavellian foreign policy methods should pick up a copy of Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror-which exposes the dark side of what happens when America "spreads democracy" in the Middle East and is key in understanding why some countries are rather skeptical of the U.S.'s motives. To give a quick summary, the 1953 coup in Iran established a pro-American puppet regime that was kept in power for over twenty-five years by the brutal and notorious SAVAK secret police, which was established and trained by both the American CIA and Israel's Mossad. Needless to say, this should be enough to raise the eyebrows of even those who are most uncritical of America's actions in the world. For those inquiring minds who aren't satisfied with just this one example of American assisted regime change, you can also read Kinzer's recently published Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq which provides enough hard evidence to both shatter America's "myth of national innocence" and make it clear that her practice of spreading "democracy" by force of arms is nothing new.

On a side note, I personally find it somewhat ironic that the coup d'état which put the very repressive Shah Pahlavi in power, since it was ultimately done for the benefit of the "Military-Industrial Complex", was orchestrated during President Eisenhower's administration. This is because it was Eisenhower himself who originally coined the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex". Indeed, in his Farewell Address to the Nation, given on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said:

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

I think the best explanation for this irony is the fact that Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown very early (1953) in Eisenhower's presidency, which ran from 1953 to 1961, thus giving time for Eisenhower's uneasiness with what he would eventually call the "Military-Industrial Complex" to increase and ferment. Such skepticism regarding the allegedly noble goals of U.S. foreign policy were anything but unique in the higher ranks of the U.S. government in the 20th Century. Indeed, Smedley D. Butler, a highly decorated U.S. Marine Corps general, in his tell-all book War is a Racket explained that he "spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." In spite of the fact that these unpopular protests made it clear that Smedley Butler was morally courageous—and the fact that he was only one of two U.S. Marines to ever win two Medals of Honor makes it clear that he was physically courageous as well—it's still rather unsurprising that speaking such frank truths derailed his military career, since speaking the truth to the public obviously isn't a quality that most governments like in their military leaders.

By the way, there's a new documentary entitled Why We Fight that examines the motivations for the invasion of Iraq in light of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's concerns about the "Military-Industrial Complex", which even includes interesting interviews with John S. D. Eisenhower (the former President's son) and Susan Eisenhower (the former President's granddaughter). I think that watching this DVD, along with reading: 1) Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World, by Karen Armstrong; 2) A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin; 3) A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, by F. William Engdahl; 4) Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East, by Rashid Khalidi; 5) The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Chalmers Johnson, and 6) Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, by Michael Scheuer, should be enough of an education for understanding what's currently going on in the Middle East and the history behind it, insha'llah.

Moving on...in addition to mentioning the American media's dereliction of duty in regards to being critical of the information that the government spoon-feeds them and their failure to act independently in order to keep the citizenry truly informed in regards to what's really going on today in the realm of global socio-political-military affairs, Robert Newman's History of Oil finally moves on to discuss the 1971 OPEC decision which declared that all oil had to be bought and sold in U.S. dollars and the current push by some "Axis of Evil" nations to have the required petrodollars currency switched from U.S. Dollars to Euros. Indeed, as Wikipedia confirms, "Saddam Hussein did switch to the Euro and some commentators claim this switch was another factor contributing to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq". Far from being the stuff of conspiracy theories, there seems to be some bite to this, since the economic interests of the U.S., the world's top debtor nation, would certainly be threatened by such a change.

The video essentially concludes by discussing the theory of "Peak Oil", by which some experts have voiced the prediction that between the years 2006 and 2010 the world will pass the "peak oil spike" and there will be less net energy available due to the higher demands placed on the system by continued population growth and increasing industrialization in the developing world. I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but the fact that in a few years maximum oil output won't be able to keep up with demand is pretty scary stuff since it could lead to not only so-called "Resource Wars", but to everything from massive changes in the standard of living that much of us enjoy to widespread famine. However, I think the seemingly widespread indifference towards the fact that the world could very well run out of oil before having a viable alternative is not only disturbing, but it's rather indicative of the effort that needs to go into educating people about this pending crisis. No doubt, this issue very much amounts to an elephant in the room that the world's largely ignoring. Robert Newman opines that there's unlikely to be any technological "quick fix", and I tend to believe him, although it seems many people are content to relish in the optimistic belief that technology will come to the rescue even in this rather unprecedented case. If you want to read more on this brooding subject, a couple of the best titles seem to be The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (which Newman mentions in the video) and The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. I really liked the pointed question that Robert Newman asks regarding, "How will we feed ourselves when the oil runs out?", since I think it really cuts to the chase and helps people realize really what's at stake here. We're not just talking about paying more for airline tickets or having to give up driving SUVs, since an oil shortage—even one brought about by output not being able to keep up with demand—would have a drastic impact on almost every aspect of human life today, including much of the world's farming and food distribution system that's currently very dependent on petroleum to keep it moving. Food for thought...

All of this comes as no surprise the U.S. government, since at least as far back as the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, they've been taking action to ensure that they have guaranteed access to the world's oil resources. Indeed, in 1979 President Jimmy Carter established the Rapid Deployment Force for the primary mission of protecting the Persian Gulf oil fields which had come to be seen as a "vital interest" of the United States. This was clearly laid out in a study by the Congressional Research Service entitled "Oil Fields as Military Objectives" and is something that is an undisputed fact amongst experts of recent Middle East history and military affairs. Now, however, such unapologetic declarations are somewhat of an embarrassment since they give the lie to the current Bush Administration's rhetoric that they're in Iraq to: 1) destroy WMD that they know Saddam Hussein has; 2) fight the "War on Terror" (although no terrorist group, al-Qa'ida or otherwise, was known to be in Saddam-controlled Iraq until after the 2003 U.S. invasion); or 3) "Spread democracy to the Middle East" rather than to secure continued access to the region's oil by establishing permanent military bases. Readers should be aware of the fact that the aforementioned Rapid Deployment Force was the predecessor to the current U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)-which is the military headquarters responsible for all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Thus the military operations that we see going on around Middle East oil fields today are very much the result of plans put in place by resource-aware imperialist visionaries back in the 1970s.

Keeping in mind that we should all realize that history is in good hands and that trust is indeed the flipside of patience, I pray that Almighty God gives us all the patience to endure and the strength to be steadfast throughout all of the various tests and trials that appear to be looming just over the horizen.

Don't forget to watch the video...and Deen On.