In terms of the United States foreign policy in the Middle East, oil has consistently driven our actions. While there have been various other explanations, such as a desire for democracy to spread, preventing communism from spreading, or fighting back against terrorism, oil has been the one consistent variable. This is not to say that the other messages were faked, because there were important other variables. It is to say that while they may be evolving and changing, oil is a persistent theme.
Dwight Eisenhower was the first president who truly embraced oil’s importance to the United States in the region. Within his first year in office, he authorized the covert CIA operations that lead to the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq, and supported the Shah who was a leader in torture. Oil nationalization had taken place in 1951, so it is of note that the United States acted so quickly in its actions. The nationalization of Iranian oil is significant because it has to this day the fourth largest amount of reserves in the world, more than any other country. While some may see this in the context of the cold war, it is notable that the coup launched against Mossadeq took place before one that took place later against President Arbenz of Guatemala. Considering that the country in the United States backyard, where traditionally the United States has drawn a line against any intervention came second to a country in the middle east, it is obvious that there was something there that had to be an extra variable.
Considering where the United States has not intervened during similar periods is important. During the Suez Crisis, France and Great Britain pressed for the United States to join the intervention that would have most likely lead to the overthrow of President Nasser. The United States declined, fearing a larger conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is impossible not to consider that just three years after the Iranian coup took place, that the United States may have declined to intervene because Egypt just did not have the oil that would have been considered strategically important. Egypt does have substantial reserves, but not nearly as much as that of Iran.
Further evidence is provided by the other locations where the United States has in the end decided to intervene. The United States backed the coup that brought the Ba’aathist regime to power in 1963, lead by Suddam Hussein. What is ironic is that later, when Iraq nationalized its oil in 1968, the United States backed kurdish insurgencies which weakened Iraq. Some of this had to do with Iran and the United States, who were allies at this point, wanting to weaken Iraq before it became too strong of a military force in the region. But beyond this, Iraq is right behind Iran in terms of oil reserves. It was only when the Iranian regime was overthrown, bringing in a new one that was unfriendly to the United States that the United States ended up backing Hussein in the war, because Iran’s rise had been directly against the United States interests. The United States also ended up defending Kuwait against Iraqi aggression, which is notable because of how Kuwait does contain the sixth highest amount of reserves in the world. Finally, the Iraq war was lead in 2003 despite the evidence being limited at best of their interaction with terrorists or having weapons of mass destruction.
The evidence is furthered by the two primary examples, Iran in 1953 and Iraq in 2003, by taking a look at the countries in the years after the elimination of the regime that was unfriendly to the United States. In terms of Iran, the oil that had been used and profited off of by British companies continued to do so. The Shah regularly signed agreements that agreed to an even split of the revenue, with the Shah actually having signed a twenty year continuation as of 1973. The overthrow of the Shah is what lead to Iran eventually nationalizing its petroleum. In Iraq, nearly all of the oil has been privatized since the end of the war. Companies such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum, and Halliburton have all set up shop in Iraq since Hussein was removed from office. Iraq is also notable because of the Kurdish question. The United States, despite receiving extensive support from Kurdish militia’s in the fight against ISIS, refused to back a referendum on Kurdish independence. While there are other factors that are in play, it can not be ignored that a significant amount of Iraqi oil is located in what would be Kurdistan. If the Kurdish people are granted independence, there is not guarantee that they would play nicely with foreign companies sharing their part of the oil.
Oil is the the one and deciding factor that determines United States policy in the Middle East. There are various other areas that are in contention that play in. But, when evaluating the United States actions in the region, it is impossible to completely ignore the role that oil has played. Whether or not it is the deciding factor, there seems to never be a move that does not benefit oil interests of the United States in the region. The idea that the United States is attempting to decide or control foreign countries domestic policies that have to do with their own resources is a disturbing one, and hopefully it will not be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment