From Iraq to Iran

"He [Saddam] now has this distributed in little sites, tiny sites, tiny centrifuges the size of washing machines, and they're hidden. Are you going to find them? Iraq is a very big country. He's got 50 palaces with secret trap doors. I mean it's not going to work. It doesn't work that way. It didn't work up to now, it's not going to work." Benjamin Netanyahu

Probably Mr. Netanyahu ist still believing Saddam's WMD are there in Iraq, somewhere hidden under the hot desert sand, invisible for satellite surveillance, too tiny to be found. Yes, nobody can find them behind the secret trap doors (is '50' taken from the Thora?), they are just too tiny, pinpoint almost ... And this is probably also the reason for not finding WMD in Iraq down to the present day, they just too tiny, hidden in tiny places ...

... what a nonsense, but obviously good enough for the US-American audience; kind of oriental scary story coming from a man who knows how easily the US can be drawn into a war (see America is easy to push around or 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'). On another occasion the minstrel sang his song with such overemphasized 'feverishly' that it sounds almost funny in our ears listening backwards through time during which no trace of WMD in Iraq other than those of the invaders have been found.

"It is simply not reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam is not feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons, as we speak.” Benjamin Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

watch also here: Netanyahu was wrong about Iraq having nuclear weapons

And the man goes on and on. But in contrast to Richard "Dick" Cheney - who put forward his 1% Percent-Rule for attacking other countries or Colin Powell, whose infamous performance in front of the UN General Asembly has become a classic of war propaganda, dubious Mr. Netanyhu doesn't dwell for long with arguing or presenting evidence, he just tries to convince people that other nations in the Middle-East than Israel cannot be given the bomb. Thus, just as he was agitating against Iraq "we cannot allow a world in which Saddam acquires nuclear weapons", he is fear- and warmongering against Iran by evoking ad nauseam the angst of freakish Muslim leaders:  "just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs." In fact, he only takes Cheney's 1% and multiplies it with some value big enough to blow it up to an allegedly real threat. We can call it the Netanyahoo-Factor (in other words, the amount of Chutzpah needed to make up a 1% chance of a catastrophic event to look like an absolute necessity).

How dubious is this guy? Once Israeli Newspaper Haaretz wrote about a video showing Netanjahu bragging about how he's dealing with the Oslo peace process and the "ally" USA:

"This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel."

Alternatively, watch video and transcript here: ‘The world won’t say a thing’– Netanyahu on ongoing Israeli expansion"

"Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right correction.
Child: They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…
Netanyahu: They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way."

Further reading: an article from 1996: "Spook, Terrorist or Criminal? America’s Mysterious Files on Netanyahu"

Why Wait for a Military Incident?

Patrick Clawson - a warmonger with a long catalogue of sins (see the entry in the Right Web) - explains "the traditional way that America gets into war" as follows.

"I frankly find that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us into war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets into war is what would be best for U.S. interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II, as David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I, you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolineans had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure.

I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, some day one of them might not come up, who would know why? We could do a variety of things if we wish to to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition, you know it’s just sanctions have to succeed or it’s other things.

We are in the games of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier."

You're nasty enough, terrorizing the world.

There is a little historical distortion in what Clawson said. There is no real (or false-flag) military incident necessary. In fact, the US take ANY opportunity to start a war or send their troops, if it serves their interests (political and financial hegemony). Empires and hegemonic powers have always been opportunists, trying to take advantage of EVERY situation that comes along, and so does the US:

- There is an earth-quake? Let's go to Haiti!
- There are two airliners crashing into two sky scrapers and three buildings are coming down (like in a controlled demolition)? Let's go to Afghanistan!
- There is a heart-breaking story of Kuwaiti babies taken out of their incubators and left to die by Iraqi soldiers? Let's go to Iraq! (see Nayirah, a classic of war propaganda)
- Mhm, there is nothing? Let's apply the Cheney Doctrine and go again to Iraq!

See the video of Clawson's speech

• How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout
• VIDEO: WINEP’s Director Of Research: U.S. Needs A False Flag To Start A War With Iran
• Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!

Oh, How We Love Our Oriental Rulers!

"If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria.  If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt", Robert Baer once said.

Now, the West loves brutal dictators - as long as they keep their cruelties secret and as long they play by the rules - OUR rules, or - to be more precise - the rules of big business. We loved when crazy Gaddafi  resided in a tent on Donald Trump's property in New York and was eager to supply oil, we loved when the Trabelsi Clan provided us with cheap labor slaves and hotels to serve us Western tourists on Tunesia's golden beaches; we loved the outsourcing, the money laundering and the weapon deals with the Mubarak Clan in Egypt, we loved Yemen's Saleh and offered him refuge just as we liked the Shah of Persia and Saddam, and we still love the Gulf states - especially Saudi Arabia - because we can make such a good business with them and they really manage to keep their fellow citizens down and torture in the dark. And we all know: Syria is next. Assad was good, but he couldn't keep his people effectively under control. So don't wonder why "Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels"! This is just the "Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy" as one of the last remaining journalists said. Don't you worry, we'll find another dictator for Syria and then we apply democracy there!

The Nice and Naive Mr. Powell (It Wasn't Me!)

“There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn't don't tell him that he doesn't,” Powell writes. “I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the U.N. in 2003 about Iraqi WMD programs was not based on facts, though I thought it was.” read "Another War Criminal Cashes In"

Powellesque Warmongery

Powellesque Warmongery is by definition a (live) publication of unverifiable pieces of alleged evidence illustrating a possible (military) threat, designed to make the audience vote for aggression (war) but against any logic, counter-evidence and common sense; the presented Powellesque Evidence consists mainly of rumors, graphic files and videos showing alleged intelligence entirely undetermined and partly reproducible by any photoshop freshman; no way of telling facts from fake but fulfilling the Cheney Doctrine for entering into war; often Powellesque Evidence is manufactured by people other than the Powell (the one who presents the material, unchecked by himself); named after Colin Powell's (in-)famous speech before the U.N. General Assembly, February 5th, 2003.

Typical Powellesque Evidence for the existence of aliens

Usage:

"Did you hear the news "Iran 'digging mass graves for US troops' in case of invasion"?"

"Where did you get that Powellesque Warmongery from?"

"It's reported by FARS!"

"Do you have some link to the original source?"

"No"

"Any other evidence?"

"It was a revelation by former commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard General Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam."

"Who's that?"

"I don't know."

"What a Powell you are!"

"Jesus died and resurrected."
"Gosh! How did that happen?"
"It's written in the Bible"
"C'mon, Powellesque Evidence!"

Recent examples from a decade of Israel-Iran warmongery: It's Getting Powellesque Again

It's Getting Powellesque Again

Powellesque Warmongery is rearing its ugly head again: a google earth photo showing something which could be any industrial plant whatever, suggesting that there have been already performed "nuclear (bomb) tests" ...

Israeli official: Satellite images back our claims Iran is developing nuclear weapon (Haaretz)

And this one, a 3-D picture manufactured by The Associated Press - showing something which looks like a big milk reservoir ...

New image reportedly depicts Iran's military nuclear testing site (Haaretz)

If the Iranians Really Want Something from Israel, What Is It exactly?

(50:00)

"Let's talk about the neo-cons. Who has done more damage to Israel than the neo-cons?"

(52:45)

"The American way is always "We don't talk to them!". You take the French on the other hand who have a back-channel to Teheran  right now as we speak. They always talk to their enemies, figure out what they want, see if they can give it and then - once they have decided on a policy in secret - they make it public. And that's what we need to do to Teheran. We really need to find out what they want, how far they're going on this nuclear bomb and what they need from Israel: is it the settlements in the West Bank, is it Israel's nuclear program, is it Lebanon? All these things can be worked out, I think, with the Iranians."

(54:00)

"They [Iran] are not a radical expanding power. They are a traditional state power which wants to be predominant in the Gulf. And they want to be predominant in the Gulf because they believe they have the biggest army, the rim of the Gulf is 90% Shia and they got certain demands."

(48:00)

"I think that we can look at the Iranians and look at the way they have acted in Iraq [...] - they are not suicidal. They're not Al'Qaeda, they don't wanna kill themselves, they could have done an enormous damage to us [...] but they didn't. We have to look at their recent record. We have to look at their record in Lebanon: in spite of the 2006 war they have stepped back from confrontation. They have stepped back from confrontation in Gaza [...]. So I see them as much more accommodating to a grand bargain than I would for instance the Taliban or Al'Qaeda or even huge parts of Saudi-Arabia - they just don't like us - there is a clash of civilizations there - there isn't with Iran. The Iranians are the only country in the Middle-East that really like us ... the Iranian people, not the regime."

These quotations of ex-CIA case officer in the Middle-East Robert Baer stem from a conversation in 2009, at a time when demonstrations against the clerical government took place in Teheran. Much of what Baer says represents a refreshing antidote to the world-wide mass media infotainment and war propaganda currently poisoning international politics. One of the striking questions asked in the video below is simply "What exactly do the Iranians want from Israel?" Note that this question is rarely asked in public debates and practically never by folks blinded by the notorious "wipe off the map" phrase and its endless repetitions.

Note also that in this video, Baer conjectures (at 46:25) that Iran's clerical regime might deliberately goad Israel into an attack on Iran in order to produce an "external threat/enemy", strengthening and confirming the Mullah's dominion inside Iran's not so stable power structure. This possibility has been only recently considered by others: see Former CIA Officials Say Iran’s Clerics Want to Goad Israel Into an Attack. (Sounds too adventurous though and too self-destructive)

see also: The Illusion of the Bomb Threatening the Existence of Israel

Listen Carefully to Mr. Blix!

Another important document regarding the war propaganda against Iran: Hans Blix, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, talks about the the US government's use of faked evidence before the Iraq war and the duty of the agency to thoroughly review and present to the public the "information" passed to them by various secret services. (A damn good advice!) Blix also points out his doubts in respect to the infamous "wipe off the map" saying (still being repeated ad nauseam by Western politicians and  mass media infotainment). He makes clear what it means to get near to a decision to produce nuclear weapons and to effectively produce them and mentions the reluctance of any country to let each of their military sites be inspected by a 3rd party. Blix states that in the 1980ies the Iranians "were denied the import of enriched uranium for their research reactor. They tried to buy it from the US and paid but they didn't get it and they didn't get the money back. So they can say that there is some justification that they do not rely the outside world to deliver and that this is the background why they start their own ... "

Lots of interesting information and memorable statements in this Al Jazeera interview, essentially consistent with the summary given by German Jürgen Elsässer in the previous post.

"As you know, it is easy to start a military affair but it is much more difficult what happens the day after."
Hans Blix

The Illusion of the Bomb Threatening the Existence of Israel

Suppose for a moment that Iran possessed nuclear weapons ready-to-use. Suppose further that the logic of the Cold War applies: if two states, opposed and armed with very destructive weaponry, command a second strike capability, they will not attack each other. Since Israel possesses nuclear WMD on land and sea - as we further assume, it follows that Iran will not drop the bomb.

So why should a nuclear Iran be a threat to the existence of Israel then?

Suppose further that Iran would launch a nuclear attack or war on Israel and the country could not respond with a second strike. What would happen next?

Note first how implausible this assumption is: for what reason should Iran destroy and make uninhabitable a part of a small region in the Middle-East which the Mullahs think to belong to the Palestinian people? What would that be good for? 

So what would happen to a country after launching a nuclear attack on Israel? For much less than such a supposed tragedy other countries have been invaded and devastated, e.g. recently Afghanistan and Iraq. You may expect wild and furious reactions from the rest of the world, led by the United States. Iran would be doomed.

So why would Iran's rich Mullahs risk all of their flourishing businesses and their unchallenged predominance inside the country? For the sake of the Palestinian people? Hardly.

Given these assumptions mentioned above, the idea of preventing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons cannot be based on the fear caused by the alleged "wiping off Israel from the map"-saying. That would be totally unreasonable, against the Cold War logic and survival instincts on the part of Iran.

Nevertheless, the gossip of a "nuclear Iran threatening the existence of Israel" is repeated over and over again by the majority of mass media entertainment around the globe. It is astonishing how persistent this naive idea of the bomb is chanted hysterically ad nauseam, remaining largely unchallenged and thereby obscuring far more convincing economical and geostrategic reasons to start a war against Iran - at least from the viewpoint of the US and their allies.

Is there an explanation of how it is possible that the illusion (under above assumptions) of a "threat of the existence of Israel" is widely accepted?

Yes, there is a reasonable psychological explanation. The logic of nuclear deterrence is quickly suspended by portraying one opponent as crazy, as dangerous madman in possession of a deadly weapon. This has been accomplished by decades of illustrating the "arabs" (muslims) as subhumans and as incalculable, wild, fanatic villains. (See Jack Shaheen's survey "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People", documentary version on youtube). Hollywood movies, the constant stream of releases dealing with alleged and actual terrorist acts (thereby overstating the danger of "international terrorism"), up to stone throwing children in Palestine - all this is suggesting a picture of primitive creatures unable to handle appropriately a deadly toy such as nuclear technology. In addition, bigmouthed Ahmadinedschad is really a fine and much welcomed leader of the opponent to be put into the role of the "devil on duty" (see principle III of Morelli's Principles of War Propaganda) - though in reality he has not much to say in clerical Iran. These are the ingredients which make even those people who have created this atmosphere of islamophobia believe in their own propaganda lies. 

Identify the War Hawks!

In 1953, the CIA together with British colleagues orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh. (For more information on that budget-friendly US-coup d'état see The Mossadegh Project or the entry in Wikipedia). After having accomplished the coup under the smokescreen of a non-existing communist threat regarding Iran, the US installed their proconsul - the oppressive, brutal and corrupt monarch Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi whose regime lasted for 26 years. Unfortunately, only radical Islamists could break the US-backed rule. That is why we have the Mullahs in Iran since 1979.
Since then there have been rumors circulating from time to time about the next US invasion target being Iran. Recently, the alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States has been sold as bargain to allegations and blatant threats against this country - rich of oil, desert and culture, reigned by prosperous Mullah businessmen who dislike US influence in the region, and inhabited by people who unfortunately have not forgotten the Shah-regime. In fact, the warmongers are attacking again - partly pretty much the same perpetrators called "experts" as experienced before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In order to restrict the destructive consequences of persons propagating organized barbarism against people, it is very useful 1) to know who these persons are, (2) to expose them together with their propaganda and (3) to publicly kill their propaganda by the means of rational arguments.
To start the list of war hawks, here are five examples of unmistakable, clear and direct appeals to start war against Iran, at least partly based on the recent cock-and-bull story of the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador on US soil.
(WARNING: If you click through the links given below beside the names of the authors, you might be shocked and disgusted because of the radical militarist contents offered, displaying the US as the chosen people, as a paranoia-driven and fear mongering nationalistic militarist state, incurably hegemonic, islamophobic, and superstitiously believing in their self-invented American Exceptionalism. But that's simply the environment these perpetrators come from. If you are a decent, sensible person, you might want to abstain from visiting most of these sites.)

Btw, the author names are equipped with a link leading to the Right Web, a website dedicated to the monitoring of "militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". The site offers an long list of warmongers, see Individuals)


William Kristol (founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Ethics and Public Policy Center  - "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy", a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, board members of Keep America Safe and the Emergency Committee for Israel)

"There’s been plenty of talk. But of course no action. This Iranian regime has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands. It’s a sponsor and facilitator of terror organizations that have killed innocent Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans, Argentines, and many others. It’s a brutal dictatorship. And it’s seeking nuclear weapons while denying it’s doing so. It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force. And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade. [...] Congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program."

Jamie M. Fly (at present executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, before: director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council, assistant for Transnational Threats Policy at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, researcher at the Republican National Committee, and The Council on Foreign Relations)

"As developments this week make abundantly clear, our disgraceful attempts to “engage” the despotic regime in Tehran — even as Iranians tried to overthrow their leaders in 2009 and even as Americans were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the Qods force — have failed. Fortunately, there is a template for action from President Obama’s predecessors in the Oval Office. An appropriate response would be targeted strikes against key regime facilities that support Iran’s illicit activities. [...] It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response."

Reuel Marc Gerecht (former case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations once said that the Iranians "have terrorism in their DNA", a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; before: a director of the Project for the New American Century's Middle East Initiative and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute)

"Khamenei probably approved a strike in Washington because he no longer fears American military might. Iran's advancing nuclear-weapons program has undoubtedly fortified his spine, as American presidents have called it "unacceptable" yet done nothing about it. And neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama retaliated against Iran's murderous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...] The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don't, we are asking for it."

Andrew C. McCarthy (senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism, columnist for National Review)

"It is one thing to pretend that a jihadist campaign by a sub-sovereign terror network is just a crime spree for which trial in the civilian justice system is an adequate response.Iran, however, is a state actor — not even arguably amenable to court prosecution. A state aggressor must get a political response, not a legal one. There is a range of possible political responses, of course, but given its three-decade campaign of aggression, the response to Iran must be military — and decisive. The regime must be destroyed."

James Carafano (Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Homeland Security expert, studied at the United States Military Academy at West Point, the US Army War College, and the Georgetown University - a private, Jesuit, research university)

"The U.S. is fully within it rights to conduct a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets in Iran. (In many ways, the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.)"

-------------------tbc---------------------------

Anybody offering links to similar martial quotes: Thanks a lot in advance!

Der Wahre Grund für den Irakkrieg? (True Reason for the Invasion Of Iraq?)

Nachdem seit 2009 die Lizenzen von 11 irakischen Erdölfeldern verkauft worden waren, schienen auf den ersten Blick jene recht zu behalten, die nicht daran geglaubt hatten, die USA hätten "nur" des Erdöls wegen das Land überfallen. Nur zwei der großen US-Öl Giganten werden sich vorerst direkt am irakischen Öl gütlich tun, einer davon Exxon Mobile. (Übrigens, welcher Ökonzern hat den höchsten jemals in Deutschland nachgewiesenen Preis pro Liter Superbenzin verlangt? Richtig: Esso! Wieviel?)

Aber, Hand auf's Herz, wer glaubt schon, daß der Hegemon, der für die Besetzung des Iraks Unsummen an Geld und Ressourcen investiert hat, sich die Butter vom Brot nehmen lassen würde? Kann man so naiv sein?

Der New York Times zufolge geht die Hälfte der 150 Milliarden, welche die Lizenznehmer in den nächsten zehn Jahren für die Ausbeutung des irakischen Öls investieren werden, an die Bohrspezialisten und Zulieferer Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International und Schlumberger, die allesamt enge Beziehungen zur texanischen Ölindustrie aufweisen. Und das, wohlgemerkt, bei einer Steigerung der Tagesproduktion von 2,5 Millionen Barrels derzeit auf geplante 12 Millionen (!) bis 2017.

"Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.“Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. Mr. Munton estimated that about half of the $150 billion the international majors are expected to invest at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade would go to drilling subcontractors — most of it to the big four operators, which all have ties to the Texas oil industry. Halliburton and Baker Hughes are based in Houston, as is the drilling unit of Schlumberger, which is based in Paris. Weatherford, though now incorporated in Switzerland, was founded in Texas and still has big operations there."

Aber es kommt noch besser, denn im Vergleich zu den anderen internationalen Ölmultis werden die US-Firmen besser abschneiden, obwohl sie nicht (alle) an den Lizenzen beteiligt sind. Die russische Lukoil hatte die Bohrlizenz für das West Qurna 2, dem zweitgrößten Ölfeld der Welt, für 13 Milliarden Dollar erworben. Unabhängig vom Ölpreis müssen die Russen an das irakische Ölministerium $1.15 pro Barrel abführen. Das Geschäft wird sich dann erst nach etwa 10 Jahren amortisieren. Bis es soweit ist, werden die genannten US-Bohrfirmen schon ordentlich verdient haben.

"While Baker and its American peers are poised to make significant profits from such work in Iraq, wafer-thin margins seem to await Lukoil and the other international oil producers — which include BP of Britain, CNPC of China, ENI of Italy and the Anglo-Dutch company Shell.Lukoil’s contract, for example, is typical in paying a flat fee of $1.15 for each barrel produced, regardless of oil’s price.That means even if Lukoil ramps up West Qurna 2 production from almost nothing now to 1.8 million barrels a day by 2017, as specified in the contract, it will require more than a decade of subsequent production just to recoup capital costs of about $13 billion. A good portion of those costs, meanwhile, will have gone to its drilling contractors. Lukoil says it intends to drill more than 500 wells over six years.""

Die Russen scheinen aber auch nicht besten Geschäftsbedingungen vorgefunden haben: Lukoils Zulieferer ist Baker Hughes. Dem Lizenzvertrag folgend mußten die Russen das Angebot für die Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bohrfirma im Irak öffentlich ausschreiben ... aber nur Amerikaner hatten sich gemeldet:

"Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the company’s subsidiary for foreign operations, said in an interview that he was choosing oil services contractors in Iraq through open tenders, as required by the contract. But in fact, Lukoil officials say privately, only American companies have bid."

Falls die New York Times wahrheitsgemäß berichtet, dürfte es immer schwieriger werden für diejenigen, die an die "Nicht-für Öl"-Hypothese als Rechtfertigung für die US-Invasion des Iraks glauben, abgesehen davon, daß diese Hypothese ohnehin nicht wirklich für hegemoniale Interessen paßt. "Kontrolle über die Ausbeutung der Ressourcen" ist das hegemoniale Stichwort. Auf welche Weise genau etwas für die eigene Wirtschaft abfällt, ist dabei nebensächlich. Und die Russen hat man wieder einmal über den Tisch gezogen.

Die Cheney Doktrin / The Cheney Doctrine

Ende November 2001 erklärte der Vizepräsident der Bush-Regierung Richard "Dick" Cheney, daß, wenn es nur eine 1%ige Chance für Massenvernichtungswaffen im Besitz der Al-Khaida gäbe, "müssen wir es als sicher annehmen und darauf antworten"*

Richard "Dick" Cheney

Eine weitere Begründung für diese Anwendung dieser bisher unbekannten statistisch-wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischen Regel (Handle, wenn die Wahrscheinlichkeit mindestens 1% beträgt) ist Cheney bis heute schuldig geblieben, wie ja auch die Nachweise für die Existenz von Massen-vernichtungswaffen im Irak. Die Suche nach diesen und deren Zerstörung war bekanntlich eines der offiziellen Hauptmotive für die U.S.-Invasion 2003 und - Cheney's Logik folgend - konzentrierte sich die U.S.-Kriegs-propaganda immer ausschließlicher auf diesen Punkt, je näher der Kriegsbeginn rückte (und noch einige Zeit danach).

Man muß keinerlei mathematisches Talent besitzen um herauszufinden, wie absurd Cheney's Gedanke ist (wenigstens unter der genannten Interpretation). Wer trotzdem wissen möchte, wie ein Mathematiker darüber denkt, hier ein paar Beispiele aus den verschiedensten Anwendungsbereichen von John Allen Paulos:

1) Ein junger Mann in einer Bar wird von einem anderen angestarrt. Wenn der junge Cheneyaner sich bedroht fühlt und glaubt die Wahrscheinlichkeit von dem anderen Mann erschossen zu werden sei mindestens 1%, dann hat er das Recht ihn preemptiv (präventiv) zu erschießen.

2) Eine ältere Frau besucht ihren Arzt (Cheneyaner), der feststellt, daß seine Patientin seit Monaten an Halschmerzen und Müdigkeit leidet. Er verschreibt ihr eine Chemotherapie, da die Wahrscheinlichkeit für Krebs seiner Meinung nach mindestens 1% beträgt. Weitere Tests, so könnte er argumentieren, beanspruchten zuviel Zeit.

3) Ein Cheneyanischer Spieler wäre der Traum jedes Casinos. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit mit zwei Würfeln eine Augensumme von 12 zu werfen, ist 1/36, also fast 3%. Also sollte der Spieler nach Cheney's Regel ruhig sein Haus auf eine 12 setzen.

4) Was täte ein Cheneyanischer Wissenschaftler, so unvollstellbar er auch sein mag? Wenn für diesen Wissenschaftler die "Evidenz" für irgendeine abstruse Theorie mindestens 1% ergäbe, dann würde er sie als vernünftige Alternative für die etablierte Theorie verlautbaren.

Überflüssig zu erwähnen, daß der Staat tausende neue Gefängnisse bauen müßte, wenn die Gerichte aufgrund einer Evidenz von 1% entscheiden würden.

Aber, jetzt einmal abgesehen von den wahren Kriegsgründen, welche die USA zur Invasion und zerstörerischen Besetzung des Iraks führten, könnte Cheney mit seiner Doktrin nicht vielleicht doch irgendetwas Intelligentes im Kopf gehabt haben ... etwa so eine Art statistischer Version des Vorsorgeprinzips?

*vgl. Bierling "Geschichte des Irakkriegs", S. 33-34. Bierling zitiert aus Suskind, Ron: The One Percent Doctrine. Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. New York, 2006.

By the end of November 2001, the Vice-President of the Bush-Government Richard "Dick" Cheney explained that if there would be only a 1% chance of Al-Khaida posessing weapons of mass destruction, "we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response".**

Further justification for this application of this so far unknown statistical/probabilistic principle ("Act, if the probability is at least 1%") was not given by Cheney until this day, as was not found the evidence for the existence of WMD in Iraq. The search for WMD and their removal was, as we all know, one of the main themes for the U.S. invasion 2003 and following Cheney's logic the U.S. war propaganda machinery played this tune almost exclusively as we approached the war declaration.

One needs not to be a math wunderkind to find out how absurd Cheney's thought is (at least under the mentioned interpretation). But if you are curious what a professional mathematician thinks about it, here you are some examples concerning various areas of application given by John Allen Paulos:

John Allen Paulos

1) A young man is in a bar and another man gives him a hard stare. If the young Cheneyite feels threatened and believes the probability to be at least 1 percent that the other man will shoot him, then he has a right to preemptively shoot him in "self-defense."

2) Or an older woman visits her Cheneyite doctor who, finding that the woman has suffered from a sore throat and fatigue for months, orders that she be put on chemotherapy since the likelihood of cancer is in his opinion at least 1 percent. Further tests, he might argue, would take too long.

3) A Cheneyite gambler would be a casino's dream. The chance of rolling a 12 with a pair of dice, for example, is 1/36, almost 3 percent, and hence would justify the gambler betting his house on rolling a 12.

4) And what about a Cheneyite scientist, hard as that may be to conceive? If this scientist decided that the "evidence" for some crackpot scientific theory suggested to him that its probability were at least 1 percent, the scientist would feel comfortable touting it as a reasonable alternative to established theory.

Needless to mention that the state would have to build thousands of new prisons if in the courtrooms there would be decisions made on the basis of a 1% chance.

But, despite the fact that there is no exact consent about the real intentions which led the U.S. to the invasion and destructive occupation of Iraq, couldn't Cheney have something intelligent in his mind when he formulated his doctrine ... maybe some kind of statistical version of the Precautionary Principle?

**page 123 of Suskind, Ron: The One Percent Doctrine. Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. New York, 2006.