Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Laying the Old “War for Oil” Iraq Myth to Rest


Michael Moore

History’s bigger and more convenient lies enjoy an endless shelf life, it would seem. The liberal wisdom according to which Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was targeted for regime change in 2003 at the behest of American Big Oil interests is one of the twenty-first century’s classic examples. Fahrenheit 9/11 filmmaker Michael Moore used the occasion of President Obama’s appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense in 2013 to remind the readership of The Huffington Post that, “back in 2007, Chuck Hagel went totally crazy and told the truth about our invasion of Iraq.” “People say we’re not fighting for oil,” Hagel had said. “Of course we are. […] We’re not there for figs.”1

The “blood for oil” libel, a popular one among liberals, is one of those conspiracy theories that even the “Fake News”-averse government-media complex has no scruples about perpetuating. Oil was a “prime motivator” for the Iraq War, Newsweek informed its readers as recently as this past summer2. “Yes, It Was Blood for Oil,” American Herald Tribune’s Richard Behan concurred just a couple of weeks ago, citing such smoking guns as the fact that, already in 2001, Dick Cheney’s National Energy Policy Development Group “was studying maps of Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals, and undeveloped exploration blocks.”3


James Petras

The fact of the matter is that if Chuck Hagel, Michael Moore, or any other celebrity or cabinet appointee “went totally crazy and told the truth” about the Iraqi adventure undertaken by the U.S. and Britain, his remarks would fall so far afield of acceptable political discourse in this country that he would likely find himself without a job within the minute. “Contrary to the view of most American progressives that oil, and specifically the interests of Big Oil, is the primary mover, there is no evidence that the major US oil corporations pressured Congress or promoted the war in Iraq or the current confrontation with Iran,” challenges veteran leftist foreign policy analyst James Petras in his 2006 book The Power of Israel in the United States. “To the contrary,” he continues, “there is plenty of evidence that they are very uneasy about the losses that may result from an Israeli attack on Iran.”4 “Through its all-out campaign in the US Congress and Administration,” Petras further charges, “the US-Jewish-Israeli lobby has created a warlike climate which now goes counter to the interests of all the world’s major oil companies including BP, the UK-based gas company, SASOL (South Africa), Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France, and others.”5

“If Iraq was invaded for oil, then the US was remarkably negligent in securing the prize,” smirks Muhammad Idrees Ahmad in his excellent 2014 study The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War.


Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

In 2006, the new Iraqi government was already reviving Hussein-era deals with China. In late 2009, with over 200,000 US troops and mercenaries present, Iraq awarded its first major post-war oil concessions – and the biggest winners were Norway, France, China and Russia. Of the eleven contracts signed, only one was secured by a US company, Exxon Mobil, as part of a consortium with Royal Dutch Shell. By November 2011, Exxon too was in negotiations with Shell and Russia’s Lukoil to sell its shares. Exxon’s attempt to sign a separate contract with the Kurdish regional government in 2011 was peremptorily rejected by the Iraqi central government. The only sector in which US companies triumphed was oil services – but in that sector the US has always enjoyed a virtual monopoly, invasions or no. By 2013, China had emerged as the largest buyer of Iraqi oil and one of the biggest investors in its oil sector. The irony did not escape one of the war’s biggest enthusiasts. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war,” said Michael Makovsky, the neoconservative former Pentagon official, “but from an economic standpoint they are benefitting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

Yet the “war for oil” argument retains a powerful grip on popular imagination. After all, hasn’t oil figured centrally in US relations with the Middle East? Hasn’t the US engineered coups in oil-rich states in the past? Hasn’t it asserted its right, and demonstrated its will to intervene militarily where its “vital interests” are at stake? Hasn’t Iraq one of the world’s largest oil reserves? Wasn’t the president of the United States a former oilman and his deputy [i.e., Dick Cheney] the head of a major oil services company? Wasn’t one of the war’s very first combat operations a Navy commando raid on Iraq’s two offshore oil terminals? Weren’t the first locations that the US and UK forces seized during the invasion Iraq’s oil installations? Didn’t the US spare troops after the fall of Baghdad to protect the oil ministry even as Iraq’s ancient heritage was plundered unimpeded? Haven’t oil companies made record profits in the years since the invasion?

For all its prima facie plausibility, the “war for oil” thesis is selective in fact and speculative in argument.6

This construction of events, Ahmad explains, “ignores the fact that these companies were being held back not by Saddam Hussein but by US-imposed sanctions.” Hussein was eager for peaceful commerce with America’s Big Oil interests, the feeling being very much mutual:


Dick Cheney

Indeed, for nearly a decade, the industry had been lobbying for an end to sanctions and resuming relations with Hussein, who was eager to do business. In 1996, Texaco, Conoco, Mobil and Halliburton joined 670 other companies and trade associations to form USA Engage, a lobbying coalition that worked closely with the US Chamber of Commerce to fight the sanctions. They lost the battle to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which successfully expanded the embargo with the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), a bill partially drafted by AIPAC’s director of foreign policy issues Steven Rosen. The oil industry’s battle to repeal the bill continued well into the next decade (and efforts to repeal succeeding bills targeting Iran continue to this day). In May 2001, according to Business Week, a proposal to ease sanctions again pitted “powerful interests such as the pro-Israel lobby and the U.S. oil industry against each other”. In 1998, Cheney had disparaged the “sanctions happy” policy of the Clinton Administration; it was hurting US businesses. Cheney had no compunction about doing business with Iraq; he had overseen $23.8 million in sales to the country between 1998 and 1999. Cheney’s successor at Halliburton shared his view. In an 18 April 2001 letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Halliburton’s director of government affairs Donald A. Deline complained that because of the sanctions “American farmers, workers, and companies have sacrificed without any progress toward U.S. foreign policy objectives.” Conoco CEO Archie Dunham likewise protested that “US companies, not rogue regimes, are the ones that suffer when the United States imposes economic sanctions.”


George W. Bush

The oil industry is aware that it can no longer rely on destabilising military adventures to open new markets. Since the 1970s, it has relied on agreements with host governments for its operations. Belligerence on the other hand has only jeopardized investments and brought uncertainty to future projects. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty resulted in US oil companies losing major contracts in Russia. ILSA kept them out of the lucrative Iranian and Libyan markets. Meanwhile, European competitors such as Total, Gazprom and Petronas were able to dominate the market unchallenged. On 15 March 1995, when Clinton issued Executive Order 12957 banning US companies from developing Iran’s oil reserves, Conoco lost $1 billion worth of contracts that Total then picked up for a bargain.

The industry was also hurt by the pronounced pro-Israel tilt ushered in by the Bush Administration. The neoconservatives’ hostility towards the Saudis alarmed oil companies, in particular Shell and Exxon Mobil, which had made huge investments in the Kingdom’s natural gas. US companies for the first time lost major contracts to European competitors in 2001, mainly due to the then Crown Prince Abdullah’s anger over US indifference towards the Palestinians. […] The architects of the Iraq war presented oil security as one of the war’s objectives, but oil companies were worried “about the short-term danger and the supposed long-term benefits of intervention”. They dreaded burning oilfields, saboteurs and political chaos interrupting supplies. Shares fell as the war approached.7  

“Oil companies no doubt gained from the price hikes following the invasion of Iraq,” Ahmad concedes. “This,” however, “makes Big Oil no more responsible for launching the war than Iran or Venezuela, which also reaped in windfall profits.”8 If the 2003 invasion of Iraq – engineered by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other Jewish advocates of Israeli primacy who fastened their mosquito beaks into American foreign policy, as Ahmad documents throughout the highly recommended The Road to Iraq – proves anything, it is that Big Israel trumped Big Oil. The corpses of 5,000 Americans prove it.

Rainer Chlodwig von K.


  1. Moore, Michael. “Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq”. The Huffington Post (January 5, 2013):
  2. Gokay, Bulent. “Why Oil Was a Prime Motivator for the Iraq War”. Newsweek (July 10, 2016):
  3. Behan, Richard. “Yes, It Was Blood for Oil: CODEPINK Nails the Truth About George Bush’s Wars”. American Herald Tribune (December 15, 2016):
  4. Petras, James. The Power of Israel in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press, 2006, p. 21.
  5. Ibid., p. 22.
  6. Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees. The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014, pp. 18-19.
  7. Ibid., pp. 19-21.
  8. Ibid., p. 22.

About icareviews

Author, Protocols of the Elders of Zanuck: Psychological Warfare and Filth at the Movies

30 comments on “Laying the Old “War for Oil” Iraq Myth to Rest

  1. icareviews
    December 26, 2016

    Reblogged this on icareviews.


  2. Pingback: Laying the Old “War for Oil” Iraq Myth to Rest | Aryan Skynet | rudolfblog

  3. guest
    December 27, 2016

    *cough* bookzz dot org *cough* for endnotes 4 & 6


  4. guest
    December 27, 2016

    via Why We Invaded Iraq, a similar article:

    “The neocons were the Iraq war’s sine qua non*, but other stars had to align for the opportunity to present itself: the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a godsend. The moment was ripe, and the neocons were abundantly prepared to exploit it. They “succeeded in using the shock and disorientation of the attacks to place Iraq…on the agenda and helped manufacture the case for invading it,” Ahmad writes. Indeed, such was their preoccupation with Iraq that many of them urged going to Baghdad immediately after 9/11, never mind Afghanistan. Deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz argued this case a mere four days after the terrorist attacks, at the first gathering of Bush’s national security team post-9/11, held at Camp David. Not even Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, supported Wolfowitz’s position—at least not at that point.”

    * essential, crucial, or indispensable ingredient


    • icareviews
      December 27, 2016

      Yeah, that was where I heard about Ahmad’s book.


  5. BMan
    December 27, 2016

    Thanks, jews.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. bob saffron
    December 27, 2016

    If posting the Sniegoski work itself is verboten, here’s a review thereof.


    • icareviews
      December 28, 2016

      I’ll get around to reading that sometime. Ahmad’s book is shorter, though, and my schedule doesn’t permit me to finish many books anymore.


  7. bob saffron
    December 27, 2016

    Here’s the original. A comprehensive rebuttal of the war-for-oil thesis.


  8. bob saffron
    December 27, 2016

    Here’s a link for the original. Sniegoski destroys the war-for-oil thesis.


  9. fuhrerious88
    December 28, 2016

    Reblogged this on Remember The 14 Words .


  10. guest
    December 29, 2016

    You could write a very similar article on Iran, using “Manufactured Crisis – The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare by Gareth Porter” as the basis, here is an article about it, and a youtube talk by the author himself.


    • guest
      December 29, 2016

      And another in the same vein on Syria:
      Israeli intelligence seen as central to US case against Syria
      Is US Rush To War (with Syria) Based On Israeli Intelligence?

      This “evidence” was used by Cameron to push for the war, but he lost when it came up for a vote in the parliament back in 2013:

      “The United Kingdom House of Commons voted 272–285 last night against proposed possible military action against Syria following claims the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians. The government motion was defeated by opposition from the Labour Party, as well as rebel MPs from both the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties.”

      Is it just me, or is there a pattern emerging?

      Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        December 29, 2016

        One crummy thing I didn’t mention in this post is that Ahmad, the author of The Road to Iraq, has more recently prostituted himself by shilling for U.S. “humanitarian” intervention in Syria, which ironically puts him on exactly the same side as exactly the figures he criticizes in his book. He’s way too intelligent and deeply read in these subjects to genuinely be so retarded, so it makes me think somebody must have gotten to him and bought him off. Either that or he just has some personal objection to Assad.


    • icareviews
      December 29, 2016

      I’ve seen and considered buying that book; but there’s only so much time in the day and only so much hateful racism to squeeze into a single week. A man has to make choices and I chose to hate elsewhere.


      • guest
        December 29, 2016

        Maybe stop watching movies! 🙂


  11. smartwhiteguy
    December 30, 2016

    I personally find it very amusing when I see some Xian cuck passionately and angrily talking about how all the trouble in the middle east is over oil.
    These same boobs look at you like you’re insane if you even hint that israel may have something to do with any of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      December 30, 2016

      Sometimes I wish I could just open up and unleash some truth on people at work. For instance, the black woman who lubs her some Israel Jew magic but holds George W. Bush in contempt for getting the U.S. into Iraq. That was rich Whitey’s war!

      Liked by 1 person

      • smartwhiteguy
        January 1, 2017

        Well, to be fair her people are not known for their insight or perceptiveness.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. barnyardboss
    January 1, 2017

    so… doing israel’s (goldman sachs) bidding in iraq/iran/syria and europe getting lots of oil (except where we failed in syria) means the wars are not over oil… got it.


  13. Hipster Racist
    January 1, 2017

    Susan Lindauer’s story is quite relevant to this. She was in negotiations with Iraq to end the sanctions. The Iraqis were willing to do pretty much whatever it took.

    Lindauer was then instructed by her CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, to threaten the Iraqis. She was instructed to tell them that the CIA had learned of a plot to hijacked airliners and fly them into buildings, and that if Iraq didn’t cooperate the US would “bomb them back to the stone age.” That was a month before 9/11.

    She was sent to military prison for a year and they attempted to drug her to keep her from telling her story. She also said she say tapes of Mossad work crews show up to the WTC in the weeks prior, and also that the infamous Naudet brothers were Mossad.


  14. Pingback: Laying the Old “War for Oil” Iraq Myth to Rest | Hipster Racist

  15. Pingback: Bursting the Bubble of the Popular Blood-for-Oil Libel

  16. Pingback: Global Rat-Perch: Jewish Misdirection in the Work of Michel Chossudovsky | Aryan Skynet

  17. Pingback: Global Rat-Perch: Jewish Misdirection in the Work of Michel Chossudovsky

  18. Pingback: Global Rat-Perch: Jewish Misdirection in the Work of Michel Chossudovsky | National Vanguard

  19. Pingback: 🍙 The Retarded Illuminati 🍙 – Tyrone Trump

  20. Pingback: Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. III | Utter Contempt

  21. Pingback: Straightening Out the Horseshoe Theory | Alternative Right

  22. Pingback: Debunking The Horseshoe Theory Once And For All –

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: