I would argue oil was also secondary. The primary reason was to make an example out of a country that was becoming a little too independent. It was supposed to be the first domino in a longer line of countries in the region left over from the cold war that were not yet aligned with the US (or at least not sufficiently integrated into the neoliberal hegemonic world order) and needed their governments toppled one way or another. The US wanted to turn the entire Middle East into obedient client states.
I mean, Iraq was an ally of the USA against Iran to the point of spending 8 years engaging in a proxy war for the USA against Iran that killed something like 1.2 million people combined.
The US doesn’t have allies. It uses countries and proxies as long as they are useful and then it discards them.
Yes the US and Europe had given all kinds of weapons to Saddam, including chemical weapons, to use against Iran. But they eventually turned on him, just like they turned on their puppet narcodictator Noriega in Panama.
One reason for this was that it was no longer as convenient for the US to have puppet military dictators in the post-Soviet period. They became too much of a PR liability and the MO of the US changed to doing color revolutions to install ostensible “liberal democracies” which were just as easy to control through NED, USAID, etc. but allowed the West to maintain a “cleaner” image.
Another reason was that Saddam had been in power for so long that he was turning more nationalistic and began to show too much independence for Washington’s liking. The last straw was when he wanted to start selling oil in Euros rather than dollars, but they wanted to get rid of him long before that.
I’m sorry if my response came across as pedantic. It wasn’t my intention to “win” anything, i only wanted to introduce some nuance into this discussion and bring up a few additional things to think about.
Its just the difference between how you talk to your own friends or close coworkers and how you’d talk when you’re around somebody else’s friends or a different set of workers. Being a bit more polite, more clear in communicating a bit more thoughtful about how comments might be (mis)understood to reduce potential friction between two different social groups.
But WHY do they care so much about having influence over the middle east? what are they after? what do they want to do with this influence and this access to the economies of the middle east? sure to some extent they seek power for its own sake, and also to some extent they sought to destroy the country so their corporations had a new market to do in as the pleased, but oil is the biggest resource in the middle east its the most important export for almost all middle east countries, and it is also the backing for the american dollar and by extension americas entire monetary imperialist system, they want power in the middle east because of oil.
America is one of the largest oil producing states. The need isn’t for raw oil for oils sake either. The neoliberal project in the middle east is about destabilization, without Western interference peoples in this region geographically and economically have the potential to become global power players. Gotta interrupt that as soon as possible in as complete a way as possible. Constant war and attempted regime changes to align a region completely with the West.
The petrostate and petro dollar are tools of subjugation to empire, that’s the goal. Not the oil.
Saddam’s Iraq was the enemy of Israel. There is too much emphasis on the Israel lobby in this video. This makes sense Steve and John focused on the Israel lobby, but the US has more lobbyist than just Israel.
Consider, the Saudis allowed the US military to stage the invasion from within their own borders. Being power hungry, therefore money hungry, Saddam invaded Kuwait under the pretext of territorial claims. He incurred a lot of debt and his military needed to be funded after the failure in the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam staged an assassination plot against Bush Sr. It is reasonable to think that the Saudis had in interest in removing a hostile neighbor, not just Israel. Certainly, Kuwait was onboard.
Then you must consider that the Persian Gulf and Arabia are strategic oil reserves for the world with a high concentration of oil and natural gas output. A possible belligerent running amok in the region was something that would not be tolerated.
When you consider how much of the elites from various countries wanted Saddam removed, it was a calculated move by George W. Bush Junior to permanently remove Saddam and the Ba’ath Party from Iraq. It was a combination of inputs from various world actors, not just one. George W. Bush had a nation-building ideology on top of it to remake the world in America’s image. In his view, it was a reasonable and noble idea, even if the public did not support it.
There is too much emphasis on the Israel lobby in this video.
It certainly wasn’t the sole or even the main factor, but the Zionist lobby definitely wanted the invasion and pushed for it hard. Iraq was a big obstacle to Zionist expansion plans in the region, just like Syria is today.
Saddam invaded Kuwait under the pretext of territorial claims.
The territorial claims are not a pretext, Kuwait was a province of Iraq that was split off by the British who made it their colonial bridgehead in the Gulf in order to better control the region and gain access to its resources. However that wasn’t the main reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The reason was primarily economical and had to do with Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields effectively stealing their oil. Kuwait, having essentially been transfered from being a British protectorate to a US one, did this with US encouragement and support, implicit promises to protect them in case of conflict.
Meanwhile however the US was also telling Iraq through back channels that they would not intervene in case of a conflict with Kuwait, emboldening them to invade so the US could have a pretext to bomb and sanction them.
Saddam staged an assassination plot against Bush Sr.
This was never proven. In fact it is more likely that the whole thing was staged by elements in the US deep state (CIA) to push the US government over the edge in their decision to take out Saddam.
A possible belligerent running amok in the region was something that would not be tolerated.
So the US became the belligerent running amok instead? You are implying that the imperialists were interested in preserving the stability of the region but that is actually the exact opposite of what they have always wanted. They benefit from conflict and instability in key geographical locations like the Middle East. They purposely created the conditions for the rise of ISIS, covertly armed and funded them, and then launched the dirty war on Syria.
Keeping the region in chaos halts Eurasian economic integration and regional economic development (for example: multiple pipeline projects that were similarly threatening to US geopolitical interests as Nordstream was were put on ice or permanently canceled as a result of these wars), leaving not just the region itself but the entire continent more vulnerable to neo-colonial exploitation.
I would argue oil was also secondary. The primary reason was to make an example out of a country that was becoming a little too independent. It was supposed to be the first domino in a longer line of countries in the region left over from the cold war that were not yet aligned with the US (or at least not sufficiently integrated into the neoliberal hegemonic world order) and needed their governments toppled one way or another. The US wanted to turn the entire Middle East into obedient client states.
?
I mean, Iraq was an ally of the USA against Iran to the point of spending 8 years engaging in a proxy war for the USA against Iran that killed something like 1.2 million people combined.
The US doesn’t have allies. It uses countries and proxies as long as they are useful and then it discards them.
Yes the US and Europe had given all kinds of weapons to Saddam, including chemical weapons, to use against Iran. But they eventually turned on him, just like they turned on their puppet narcodictator Noriega in Panama.
One reason for this was that it was no longer as convenient for the US to have puppet military dictators in the post-Soviet period. They became too much of a PR liability and the MO of the US changed to doing color revolutions to install ostensible “liberal democracies” which were just as easy to control through NED, USAID, etc. but allowed the West to maintain a “cleaner” image.
Another reason was that Saddam had been in power for so long that he was turning more nationalistic and began to show too much independence for Washington’s liking. The last straw was when he wanted to start selling oil in Euros rather than dollars, but they wanted to get rid of him long before that.
Okay… fine… you win with your pedantry.
/s
I’m sorry if my response came across as pedantic. It wasn’t my intention to “win” anything, i only wanted to introduce some nuance into this discussion and bring up a few additional things to think about.
Shit… forgot I wasn’t commenting on hexbear. No worries. I appreciate the extra information.
I should have added a /s at the end. I’ve been getting really lazy about checking what instances I’m interacting and code switching appropriately.
Are we too serious on lemmygrad compared to hexbear?
Oh no.
Its just the difference between how you talk to your own friends or close coworkers and how you’d talk when you’re around somebody else’s friends or a different set of workers. Being a bit more polite, more clear in communicating a bit more thoughtful about how comments might be (mis)understood to reduce potential friction between two different social groups.
But WHY do they care so much about having influence over the middle east? what are they after? what do they want to do with this influence and this access to the economies of the middle east? sure to some extent they seek power for its own sake, and also to some extent they sought to destroy the country so their corporations had a new market to do in as the pleased, but oil is the biggest resource in the middle east its the most important export for almost all middle east countries, and it is also the backing for the american dollar and by extension americas entire monetary imperialist system, they want power in the middle east because of oil.
America is one of the largest oil producing states. The need isn’t for raw oil for oils sake either. The neoliberal project in the middle east is about destabilization, without Western interference peoples in this region geographically and economically have the potential to become global power players. Gotta interrupt that as soon as possible in as complete a way as possible. Constant war and attempted regime changes to align a region completely with the West.
The petrostate and petro dollar are tools of subjugation to empire, that’s the goal. Not the oil.
Saddam’s Iraq was the enemy of Israel. There is too much emphasis on the Israel lobby in this video. This makes sense Steve and John focused on the Israel lobby, but the US has more lobbyist than just Israel.
Consider, the Saudis allowed the US military to stage the invasion from within their own borders. Being power hungry, therefore money hungry, Saddam invaded Kuwait under the pretext of territorial claims. He incurred a lot of debt and his military needed to be funded after the failure in the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam staged an assassination plot against Bush Sr. It is reasonable to think that the Saudis had in interest in removing a hostile neighbor, not just Israel. Certainly, Kuwait was onboard.
Then you must consider that the Persian Gulf and Arabia are strategic oil reserves for the world with a high concentration of oil and natural gas output. A possible belligerent running amok in the region was something that would not be tolerated.
When you consider how much of the elites from various countries wanted Saddam removed, it was a calculated move by George W. Bush Junior to permanently remove Saddam and the Ba’ath Party from Iraq. It was a combination of inputs from various world actors, not just one. George W. Bush had a nation-building ideology on top of it to remake the world in America’s image. In his view, it was a reasonable and noble idea, even if the public did not support it.
It certainly wasn’t the sole or even the main factor, but the Zionist lobby definitely wanted the invasion and pushed for it hard. Iraq was a big obstacle to Zionist expansion plans in the region, just like Syria is today.
The territorial claims are not a pretext, Kuwait was a province of Iraq that was split off by the British who made it their colonial bridgehead in the Gulf in order to better control the region and gain access to its resources. However that wasn’t the main reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The reason was primarily economical and had to do with Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields effectively stealing their oil. Kuwait, having essentially been transfered from being a British protectorate to a US one, did this with US encouragement and support, implicit promises to protect them in case of conflict.
Meanwhile however the US was also telling Iraq through back channels that they would not intervene in case of a conflict with Kuwait, emboldening them to invade so the US could have a pretext to bomb and sanction them.
This was never proven. In fact it is more likely that the whole thing was staged by elements in the US deep state (CIA) to push the US government over the edge in their decision to take out Saddam.
So the US became the belligerent running amok instead? You are implying that the imperialists were interested in preserving the stability of the region but that is actually the exact opposite of what they have always wanted. They benefit from conflict and instability in key geographical locations like the Middle East. They purposely created the conditions for the rise of ISIS, covertly armed and funded them, and then launched the dirty war on Syria.
Keeping the region in chaos halts Eurasian economic integration and regional economic development (for example: multiple pipeline projects that were similarly threatening to US geopolitical interests as Nordstream was were put on ice or permanently canceled as a result of these wars), leaving not just the region itself but the entire continent more vulnerable to neo-colonial exploitation.
Really great explanation, good post.