One Ring to Rule Them (Juan Cole) :Peak Oil Theory

[laststeamtrain]

Sunday, August 06, 2006

One Ring to Rule Them

The wholesale destruction of all of Lebanon by Israel and the US Pentagon does not make any sense. Why bomb roads, roads, bridges, ports, fuel depots in Sunni and Christian areas that have nothing to do with Shiite Hizbullah in the deep south? And, why was Hizbullah's rocket capability so crucial that it provoked Israel to this orgy of destruction? Most of the rockets were small katyushas with limited range and were highly inaccurate. They were an annoyance in the Occupied Golan Heights, especially the Lebanese-owned Shebaa Farms area. Hizbullah had killed 6 Israeli civilians since 2000. For this you would destroy a whole country?

It doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, the Lebanese government elected last year was pro-American! Why risk causing it to fall by hitting the whole country so hard?

And, why was Condi Rice's reaction to the capture of two Israeli soldiers and Israel's wholesale destruction of little Lebanon that these were the "birth pangs" of the "New Middle East"? How did she know so early on that this war would be so wideranging? And, how could a little border dispute in the Levant signal such an elephantine baby's advent? Isn't it because she had been briefed about the likelihood of a war by the Israelis, or maybe collaborated with them in the plans, and also conceived of it in much larger strategic terms?

I've had a message from a European reader that leads me to consider a Peak Oil Theory of the US-Israeli war on Lebanon (and by proxy on Iran). I say, "consider" the "theory" because this is a thought experiment. I put it on the table to see if it can be knocked down, the way you would preliminary hypotheses in a science experiment...

<more>

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/one-ring-to-rule-them-wholesale.html

[scarletwoman]

1. Well, that about covers it.

We are SO fortunate to have Juan Cole!

If you scroll down to his preceding post, you'll find this:

Wiping off the Face of the Map



Beirut before and after...

The difference between Ahmadinejad and Olmert is that the Iranian president is a blowhard. The one who had practical plans to wipe a country off the map was Olmert.

sw

[mike_c]

2. oh man, that is an awesome article-- MUST READ-- K&R....

Wow. Read the comments at the end, especially james_speaks.

[TomClash]

3. This Oil Theory is wrong

Iran has invited EVERY US oil company to invest in Iran, as recently as 2004. It's the US that has said no.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Depends on whose/what terms, right? n/t

[w4rma]

4. I think they are just insane racist warmongerers. (nt)

[chimpymustgo]

5. What a provocative, discussion. Here's more:

Consequences for the US and Israel are equally severe though slightly different.

Israel has the problem of inadequate water. Without water, there is no food.

Israel needs fuel for electric power and also for transportation. It stands to be totally without oil in a Shiite influenced Peak Oil world.

Israel is counting on, I think, Kurdish Iraq to supply it with oil but it needs to get the fuel to Israel.

Syria would be in a position to cripple Israel under this circumstance.

Israel has another problem. Natural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer. CH4-->Nh4-->NO3. Coal can be used in replacement, but Israel's coal fields are tapped out. (That's a joke, son.)

Without intensive fertilization, Israel needs more land just to break even. Ergo, take Lebanon. Ergo, see to it that the Lebanese die of thirst, starvation, exposure or disease.

The US has a different problem. We have enough fuel and gas to maintain our population (or perhaps 200 million of us), but not our lavish SUV lifestyle. Our economy, right now in 2006, is based on expansion of the housing market. An oil crunch causes the suburbs to be uneconomical, big box stores to be unprofitable, and major unemployment looms.

Not to worry, Homeland Security has a re-education farm camp ready for you if you lose your job and fall behind on your payments. Just kidding. At least I hope so.
From James_speaks:

-snip-
With a collapse of the housing market, and with competition from China, which holds our dollars in their savings accounts (testicles in hand, the heart and mind soon follow), the US stands to be defeated merely because we would have no economy, no money with which to import consumer goods or food, no manufacturing base to rebuild with, and no fuel to use to drive to ABC for elixor.

Basically, we are screwed. Even without upset, we are screwed. Best I can figure is that Cheney stole the election just so he and his pals could set up a system to protect themselves.

Now, if the US economic systems suffers a great decline, how will we be able to use our influence to protect Israel?

It is the potential of Iran getting a weapon which makes Israel scared simply because it means one act by Iran could ruin the Israeli dream, and the threat could make Iran invulnerable to blackmail.

From a global perspective (meaning, I would like to see life on the globe continue), an Iranian bomb is good for the US as it keeps us from doing something really stupids which could destroy us all.

There is more. Our vulnerabilities are greater than I have described, Israel's too, the evil intent of Cheney and Olmert worse than described, etc. but just the mechanics and interplay described here is a lot for one sitting.

-snip-

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/one-ring-to-rule-them-wholesale.html

[krkaufman]

7. China's supposed to just accept this?

Is China just supposed to sit back and allow us to control the oil? *If* we seem close to doing so, you can bet they will act to prevent it -- one way or the other.

However, I think it more likely that China is sitting back watching us expend our resources ($$,humans,alliances), and will casually stroll in and use our $$ to sign the long-term contracts that the neo-cons envisioned for themselves.

[katty]

8. it's always been about the OIL-Iran is the target