Problem: In order to fully control the oil supply from the Middle East the Bush administration needs to destabilize Iran, and then attempt to install a US friendly government there. The US military currently occupies Afghanistan to the east, and Iraq to the west of Iran, but as long as the US has little or no sway with the Iranian government, the US does not have full geopolitical control of Middle Eastern oil reserves.
The Bush administration's plan for geopolitical domination of Middle Eastern oil has always involved destabilizing the Iranian government, even if this means limited airstrikes under the pretense of eliminating the stalled, incipient Iranian nuclear program. Indeed, the Bush administration has spent untold billions flexing its muscles by moving the US military into and around the Persian Gulf, and using covert assets to undermine confidence among the Iranians.
However, the Bush administration's slavish adherence to supply side Reaganomics, and their stubborn insistence that it is best the way to a strong economy, may eventually be the undoing of their imperialist plans for Iranian oil.
The dilemma: Bush's military occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously saber rattling at Iran, have had a significant impact on the price of oil over the last several years. Instability in the world’s most oil-rich region resulting from the US military occupations, lack of international dialogue, and demonization of political leaders in Iran and neighboring countries, account for the lion's share of increases in the price of oil. As the price of oil shot through $100 a barrel, and now resides above $130 per barrel, at the same time that the US dollar is nearing all-time lows against foreign currencies, the buying power of the average American family has declined precipitously. As the economy moves more certainly into a recession, and as home values continue to decline, the Bush administration's economic policies are becoming less and less popular with the public.
This leads to Bush's dilemma. Any air strikes against Iran directed at destabilizing that nation's government will immediately send oil prices above $150 per barrel. At this price, the recession will worsen greatly as energy costs bleed over into almost every other sector of the economy. But the status quo is barely better for Bush.
Because this is an election year, and the country is headed into a deeper recession, Bush needs to do something more than send out checks for a couple hundred bucks to taxpayers in order to turn the economy around. This is an essential aspect for any incumbent administration in the run-up to an election. However, they are also desperate to play the war card one more time to try and rally the American people again behind Middle Eastern adventurism in the name of fighting “terrorism”.
It's a Catch-22. If they don't attack Iran, they don't get the “rally round the flag” effect, but if they do attack Iran, they drive the price of oil even higher, further deepening the recession here at home. Is there a way out for Bush & Co.?
I am certain that the talk in the West Wing regularly turns to ways that the government can accomplish the incompatible goals of repairing the economy while simultaneously bombing Iran into submission. However I do not see any way to reduce oil prices other than to reduce tensions and instability in the Middle East. That not only involves negotiations with Iran but also negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, while simultaneously reducing the US military footprint throughout the region. This is clearly not going to happen on Bush's watch. As such, we will be heading into the next election with high oil prices, high tensions throughout the Middle East, and a sagging economy at home. This could drive Bush to desperate measures as the election approaches. Only time will tell if they can figure a way out of Bush's dilemma.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
Bush's Mideast madness has nothing to do with "oil".
This is about PNAC which is all about Israel. The people pulling the strings here are fanatical...this is about their demented ideology, not about an obsession with a commodity.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 350 comments)
on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 10:31:16 PM
John, as you have outlined, Bush's accomplishments are increasing the price of oil, wrecking the US economy, decreasing the value of the dollar, and if you then listen to Bush brag about how wonderful and effective his administration has been, we must assume that what he has accomplished is what he set out to accomplish. He seems quite proud of and happy with it.
I think the most serious talk in the west wing is how to continue to remove Democrats as much as possible from the government, using any means necessary. I don't think these people have the slightest grasp of any economic or political plan or purpose. Their primary goal is evangelical Republicanism. All you have to do is believe like a Republican and you will be saved (put on the government payroll).
Bush doesn't give a whit if gas goes to $10 a gallon, he's never going to have to pay for it out of his own pocket, the government, (you) is going to pay for his luxury and comfort for the rest of his life, and that's all he cares about.
Bush doesn't give a whit if he destroys the United States. There's always going to be enough of it left that he can get hold of to live out his life comfortably. Remember, during the Great Depression retired presidents and government bureaucrats were not affected in the least.
Consider, if you made $400,000 a year and didn't have to spend a penny of it because all of your expenses and cost of living are paid for, and you're going to get a fat government pension and a fat government ex-president slush fund, would you care what gas or anything else costs when you don't have to pay for it, anyway? You and I would, but Bush doesn't.
It's hard to come to terms and accept the fact of the total venality, greed, dishonesty and corruption of the Bush Republicans because you and I don't think that way. We are normal people and associate mostly with normal people. It's just about impossible for us to even begin to understand how divorced from reality, morals, ethics, responsibility, common sense and humanity the Bush people really are. We just don't encounter those kind of people in our daily lives because we deal with people who have to make a living. The Bush people don't. It's a whole nother world.
I'm pretty sure that one of the first things Bush did on assuming office was to look around for a country without an extradition treaty (Paraguay) where he bought property, anticipating that what he was going to do would upset some people in the legal community. That's why he put sycophants like Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey in charge of the Justice Department, to cover his ass while in office. And they've done a fine job if it.
If you told Bush of your diagnosis that he has a dilemma, he'd either consult his doctor to see if it's something that can be removed with minor surgery, or, never having heard of it, he'd brag that he's the only one who has one, whatever it is. Really, if you told Bush he has a dilemma, he wouldn't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about.
Thanks for a good article, Ed.
by
Ed Martin (97 articles, 0 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 99 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 3:51:32 PM
I agree with you both. Bush started out with the Neocon PNAC theory in mind and hand and implemented it ruthlessly. While he was at the globalization and domination of the world in general, he picked up on the neolib economic beliefs of Milton Friedman and his free market mania. (both Friedman and the neocon Strauss where instructors at Univ of Chicago and contemporaries. Many parallels in their economic processes and their use of political and military power).
One of the end results of this power process is that too many of the American population are now struggling for mere survival, with fuel oil and gasoline in this area now over $4.00/gallon; food prices rising horrifically, drug prices through the roof; and on and on. People are now defocusing on the election in order to survive. Bush intended to ruin the economy and emplace a Friedmaniac structure, ala the mess Friedmania caused in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc etc. (for further information see Naomin Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" ). The Bush administration's goal was and is the total destruction of the partially socialized American economy and its' replacement with a totally conservative free market economy. He is certainly succeeding in the destruction of what we had. But it remains to be seen whether or not the free market economy will replace it. Odds are, at this time, that it will.
I had hopes that people would demonstrate in sufficient numbers so as to get through to the Democrats just what the status of America now is. But survival runs ahead of political need in this case and people are taking on more jobs, more work, cutting back, focusing on just surviving. Somehow seems like their plan for us.
And the Democrats will continue to fail America just as they have since 2006/
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 189 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 1:24:47 PM
