Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

'US to control Iraq oil always'

Published time: December 13, 2011 10:07
Edited time: December 13, 2011 15:35
An US soldier secures a street in Baghdad on December 9, 2011 (AFP Photo / AHMAD AL-RUBAYE)
Download video (87.57 MB)
Embed

Despite the US’s declared withdrawal of its military personnel and contractors out of Iraq, Washington has prepared to control the country's rich oil reserves in any case, shared Ranjit Singh Kalha, former India's ambassador to Iraq in the 1990s.

­Having spent $3 trillion in Iraq, a country with harsh weather conditions (+50 C most of the time) and absolutely nothing valuable but oil reserves, the Americans simply cannot give up the plentiful and very high quality oil they went there for.

“It takes $1.50 to take out this oil that’s just below the surface. Anybody who has access to this oil can be a game changer – as far as the politics of oil is concerned,” Ranjit Singh Kalha concluded.

The problem Americans encountered in Iraq is that once given “some symbols” of democracy, the Iraqi voted for a Shia-led government. The headache is that the Shia traditionally have close links with Iran, the core territory of this affiliation.

“That is the present dilemma. If you withdraw from Iraq completely, you leave this vast oil wealth of Iraq in the hands of Shia (Iran-oriented) government. And therefore it upsets the political balance in the Middle East,” Ranjit Singh Kalha explained.

He said that to counter such adverse developments the US will have almost 20,000-strong embassy in Baghdad (the largest US embassy in the world) and consulates in Basra, Kerkuk and in northern Kurd-inhabited territory, each consulate 1,000-strong.

“Americans cannot afford to be completely absent from Iraq,” the former ambassador argued, adding he does not see any lessening of American influence in Iraq.

Iraq is a multi-confessional country and to curb religious extremism all previous country’s rulers had to be very tough with the population, the diplomat stressed. In Saddam’s Iraq most of the military and law enforcement was Sunni and the rule of law was first of all a rule of military power preventing sectarian violence. Today’s Iraq is ruled by Shia government which does not have the necessary experience of ruling with an iron fist, so the country risks a full fledged civil war to start at any time given.

American troops will not go far from Iraq – they will be re-deployed to next door Kuwait.

“This is just a re-shuffle of the cards. Americans could always come back because the bases will be kept intact, while 20,000 personnel means that most of the staff will be there,” Ranjit Singh Kalha said.

The US has made sure Iraq does not have any Air Force whatsoever so Iraqi airspace will remain under American control, “which means you can bring force in whenever you want, however you want, and prevent anyone else from coming in.”

The Iran-Iraq border is very long and porous, the population on both sides is blood-interlinked, so the threat of Iran interfering into Iraqi internal affairs is always present.

As for Afghanistan, occupied by the allied forces, the same tactics might be used there and even if the troops depart, the military bases with thousands of servicemen will stay anyway.

Comments (13)

avatar singh 04.04.2012 02:02

IN  2008 Russia and china had the opportunity to destroy IMF  and world bank and the american -british system of looting the world ;but foolishly these two countries ,on prompting from parasite england, recommended  IMF and world bank to lead new economic system! How stupid of these countries and that is why they never go up in world because of their stupidity. ====== ==================== ==================== ==================== ============ Why did we think US would leave Afghanistan?? LOL Much easier to keep an eye on Russia and China from the Eurasian landmass - all the more rapidly they can meddle in other nation's business when the need arises. They can't be guaranteed that a stable Afghan gov't. can be trusted to do its bidding. Plu s what are they gonna do with those hundreds of bases? The airfields? The Afghans have an Air Force now? Shepherds and goat herders would live in those bases I bet, plus they can race their goats on the runway.   The only way the US leaves is if China Russia Pakistan get together and blast them out, at great cost to themselves.

+2

Undo

avatar (unregistered) 04.04.2012 02:01

­For some time now it hasbecome clear that the Anglo-Americans intend to achieve their hegemony throughforce and even welcome the next global war of any proportions to achieve it. Russiaand China must also be rather alert.

+2

Undo

avatar (unregistered) 04.04.2012 01:58

­Have rendered themselves irrelevant.
Over next few years Russia will bear the brunt of Westernexpansion(ism ). On the long run China will be the bigger loser of the two.In 10-25 years West will have looted the resources of much ofthe globe and the China will finance the NATO wars.In the end China will have a choice: face being attacked itselfor simply forget about the trillions of dollars it lent to the West.

+1

Undo

View all comments (13)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us