"Robert Baer, a former CIA spy who presents a television documentary on the history of suicide bombing, says he knew the practice would come to the UK. And it’s not the West’s values, but its foreign policies, that are to blame..... As someone who prefers his terrorism confined to Sunday nights and episodes of 24, I had been clinging to the hope that London’s recent Thursdays were an aberration. My optimism is severely dimmed by meeting Robert Baer, a former CIA spy who has returned to his old beat in the Middle East to make a grimly fascinating two-part history of suicide bombing for Channel 4. What he delivers is not good news. It provides, however, an unusually clear view of the landscape...He does not disown the words he uses at the end of this Thursday’s documentary, that suicide bombing, 'like a pathological virus', has become unstoppable. He does add, perhaps for my sake, the proviso 'until you take the causes away', but by this stage even I can see they are not going to be..... 'The other one thing is, ‘they hate us’, which is just total bullshit.' [he says] Is it? 'Yes,' he says, 'it is.' In a school run by Hezbollah, he asked a class dominated by the daughters of [suicide bomber] 'martyrs' if they watched US television. 'Everybody raised their hand. And what did they watch? Oprah. I said, ‘How can you watch this crap?’ And they said, ‘No, she’s great. We love Oprah.’..... 'So, it wasn’t our values. It wasn’t Western values. It’s Western presence. They want us to get out.'.....  There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region.   Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. 'I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.' So because the American economy is at stake, we can’t get out even to save our skins? 'That, I believe, is your classic paradox.'"
Suicide bombing is a virus that’s here to stay
London Times, 2 August 2005

Blair Knows The Whole War On Terror Is Proving A Complete Disaster
Which Cannot Be Won Through A Conventional Approach

"My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way."
British Prime Minister
World Affairs Council, Los Angeles, 1 August 2006

But Despite Endeavouring To Project An Image Of Boldness And Radicalism
Blair Has A Long History Of Following 'Received Wisdom' Of A Type Popular Within Britain's Tory Party
Both Blair And His Tory Predecessors Have Persistently Rejected The Only Evidence-Based Approach
Which Has A Proven Track Record Of Neutralising The Dangers That His Failed 'War On Terror' Is Supposed To Address
So Is Blair Really Ready To Be Unconventional In His Approach?
If Not His Principal Political Legacy Will Be The Growing Global Mayhem
That The Primitive Violence-Based Approach Of The Current British And American Governments Has Succeeded In Fuelling

"In the studies that I have examined on [this unconventional approach], I can find no methodological flaws, and the findings have been consistent across a large number of replications. As unlikely as the premise may sound, I think we have to take these studies seriously.”
Ted Robert Gurr, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Government and Politics,
University of Maryland, USA

The Only Proven Way To Lower The Temperature In The Middle East

Figure 2. Estimated mean daily level of a composite Peace/War Index for the Lebanon War for each of the seven experimental periods between June 1983 and August 1985. Time series intervention analysis indicates significant progress towards peace during each experimental period, and for all seven combined (p < 10-19) (Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 17(1): 285–338, 2005)

"I think the claim can be plausibly made that the potential impact of this research exceeds that of any other on-going social or psychological research programme. The research has survived a broader array of statistical tests than most research in the field of conflict resolution; I think this work and the theory that informs it deserve the most serious consideration by academics and policy makers alike."
David Edwards, Ph.D, Professor of Government
University of Texas, Austin, USA

In The Current Middle East Crisis
The Powerlessness Of The UN Is Being Exposed From All Sides

"The day after Israeli jets bombed a UN outpost in Lebanon, killing four UN observers from Canada, China, Austria and Finland, a 'diplomatic firestorm' has erupted over the incident."
UN deaths prompt 'diplomatic firestorm'
Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 2006

"Brandishing Hezbollah flags and portraits of its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, thousands of enraged protesters smashed their way into the United Nations building in Beirut yesterday, where they ransacked offices and started fires.... Last night Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, thanked Lebanon’s forces for rescuing his staff and handing the headquarters back to his shaken envoys. All those who had witnessed the mayhem realised that Hezbollah alone had prevented further destruction. Fouad Siniora, Lebanon’s Prime Minister, saluted the outlawed Hezbollah organisation last night for 'its sacrifices' as he summoned international diplomats to explain why he had told Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, that there was no point in her travelling to Beirut yesterday unless it was to agree an immediate and unconditional surrender, as demanded by his country. Mr Siniora accused Israel of war crimes and almost broke down as he told the diplomatic corps that one of the Qana victims was a one-day-old baby. Amin Khoudouri, a 23-year-old US educated computer analyst, expressed the view of many when he shouted during a demonstration: 'I was never Hezbollah before, but now I swear I will join them.'”
Hezbollah shows its authority as mob raids UN
London Times, 31 July 2006

"Take the Israeli killing of four UN soldiers last week, condemned by Kofi Annan as 'deliberate'. On July 18 one of the doomed officers e-mailed home to say that Israeli ordnance was landing nearby and that, 'this has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity'. A retired Canadian general interpreted this for Canadian television. 'What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favourite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields, knowing that they can’t be punished for it.'... Getting in among the UN positions and the civilians, firing at 'settlers' while seeing the other side condemned for its inhumanity, is part of the new asymmetry. And while Hezbollah might bring out the Lebanese flags for the press in Beirut, in their southern fastnesses the only banners are theirs. And what do we say, knowing this? That Bad Blair should lean on Worse Bush who should put the squeeze on Murdering Olmert and it’d all be over. That’s the new orthodoxy. God alone knows, the Israelis have, in their history, committed crimes and terrible errors. Sabra and Chatilla, the refusal to recognise for many years that Palestinians actually existed, the brutalities of the occupation, the settling on the West Bank and in Gaza and so on. The Palestinian organisations have their own track record of deceit and murder. Consequently, each slow step towards a peace has been agonising, and now the new asymmetry makes progress almost impossible. As of today, I have no answer."
We can't bear pictures of the dead. Hezbollah want to see nothing else - David Aaronovitch
London Times, 1 August 2006

"Ehud Olmert’s declaration that there would be no immediate ceasefire needs no explaining in terms of Israeli public opinion. His earlier commitment to a 48-hour pause in the bombing to allow Lebanese civilians to escape lasted just hours in the face of uproar at home. But it will bring Israel even more isolation abroad than it has yet faced, coming only a day after the deaths of 37 children in an Israeli airstrike....Israel’s move makes a nonsense of the main plan on which Blair, in particular, had based his position: a UN peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon. Blair had spent the hours before Olmert’s comments in telephone diplomacy, trying to ensure that Turkey and other key countries would take part in that force. Britain had hoped that France would emerge as leader of that force, while Sweden and Norway said that they would consider taking part, and Egypt might have played a role, possibly patrolling the Syrian border to prevent Hezbollah rearming. Blair, and many other leaders, were in danger of resting too many hopes on that force, which remained fanciful while key questions remained unanswered. Who would supply the troops, given that the US and Britain would not? And would it have a mandate to take on Hezbollah, risking violent counter-attack, like the 1983 barracks bombing that led to the exit of one international force? Or would it risk impotence and derision, of the kind suffered by the current Unifil force, because of a mandate to keep the peace and not pick a fight? To judge from preparations for a European Union meeting, which had been due today, that seemed the more likely option. The most threatening unanswered question was whether the force could move in if Hezbollah rejected its presence. Surely not, many thought."
Will Israel's gamble put Blair in the firing line?
London Times, 1 August 2006

"If Israel can't bring Hizballah down, could foreign forces help squeeze it into better behavior? Potential donors to a multinational force will be trying to hash out a plan this week. But its composition, mission and rules of engagement are acutely tricky. Rice declared that no U.S. troops would join; they're already overstretched in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. French President Jacques Chirac said he might be willing to commit French forces, but not through NATO. Soldiers from Muslim countries like Turkey and Egypt would be a plus, but so far none have materialized. The harder question is what the force would do after deployment.... If no outside force can pacify Hizballah, what's the chance it will choose to restrain itself?"
Why Hizballah Can't Be Disarmed
TIME, 31 July 2006

Uniting The Islamic Militants
How Israel Is Being Used As A Pawn
In A Misguided US Strategy That Is Doomed To Failure

One Penny Drops
But Fundamental Downing St Delusions Still Persist

"Five years into the War on Terror, Tony Blair called yesterday for a 'complete renaissance of our strategy' to defeat militant Islam.... The West had to address issues such as poverty, climate change, trade, but above all to 'bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Palestine and Israel'. Unless that happened 'we will not win, and it is a battle we must win.... We need . . . to put a viable Palestinian government on its feet, to offer a vision of how the roadmap to final-status negotiation can happen and then pursue it week in, week out until it’s done. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign policy.'"
We must rethink the War on Terror - Blair
London Times, 2 August 2006

If That's What Blair Really Thinks Then He Is Heading For Even More Failure
Islamic War Against Israel
Or Islamic War Against America?

"Many in the West see the mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, as another episode in a tedious saga of an Arab-Jewish conflict that began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a political version of the 'original sin'. The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own. But that analysis does not reflect the Middle East’s new realities.....The broader aspects of the Lebanon crisis are better understood in the Middle East than in the West. For the first time, Israel is under attack from Islamist and Arab secular radicals as 'an American proxy'. Writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab daily, a Syrian Cabinet minister, makes it clear that the war in Lebanon today is between 'the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy'. Iran’s 'supreme guide', Ali Khamenei, expressed a similar view this week during an audience he granted in Tehran to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. 'What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America,' he said. 'Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America.' President Chávez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to 'save the human race by finishing the US Empire'. Iran’s state-controlled media has said that Lebanon would become 'the graveyard of the Bush plan for a new Middle East'.... All that is good news for President Ahmadinejad, who claims that Sunni radicalism has reached the limits of its capabilities in the fight against the global system led by the US and that it is now the turn of the Shia, led by Iran, to be in the driving seat. 'Hezbollah has fought Israel longer than all the major Arab armies combined ever did,' President Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran this week. He also promised that Muslims would soon hear 'very good news' about the jihad against the United States. The idea of Shia leadership for the jihad was further boosted this year when Iran took Hamas under its wings. As a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni outfit, Hamas has exerted its influence to win wider support for Iranian leadership at least as a tactical choice. Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes."
This is just the start of a showdown between the West and The Rest
London Times, 2 August 2006

"... to say that Israel overshadows U.S. foreign policy is incorrect. Because I think that Israel is an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. And it is being used in this particular context in the pursuit of U.S. hegemony....  I don’t share the viewpoint that somehow Israel is now hijacking U.S. foreign policy and manipulating it. That position is simply incorrect."
Interview with Professor Michael Chossudovsky
Bulatlat Vol. VI, No. 21,  July 2 - 8, 2006, Quezon City, Philippines

"Although Downing Street publicly insists that Bush and Blair remain 'closely in touch' on the Iranian threat, some British officials are privately concerned that Dick Cheney, the hardline American vice-president, is driving the administration’s policy on Iran.... One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian nuclear issue as 'the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion'.... [there are] reports in Israel that Washington is secretly encouraging Tel Aviv to strike.... an Israeli attack would demolish the Middle Eastern peace process and provide Arab terrorist groups with a potentially lethal recruiting tool.... what British officials believe is a persuasive argument against a military attack: far from encouraging Iranian reformers to rise up against their theocratic government, any form of US intervention might unite the country behind Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader."
Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush menaces Iran
Sunday Times, 23 January 2005

"....  And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it [attack Iran] and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it. And I happen to think that this would be very destabilizing in the region. We would be viewed as complicit. It would intensify the problems that we are already facing in manifold fashion...."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former US National Security Adviser
PBS News Hour, 20 January 2005

“In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government Minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States  '... will go to war with Iran before the end of the year.' As we now know from similar reporting prior to the invasion of Iraq, it's quite possible that the war planning may indeed change repeatedly, and the war may again be postponed. In any case, it's worth noting that the information from a former Labour Minister corroborates expert analyses suggesting that Israel, with US and British support, is deliberately escalating the cycle of retaliation to legitimize the imminent targeting of Iran before year's end.”
UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
OpEdNews, 23 July 2006

Economic Desperation
Why America Wants The Middle East

".... Such action could itself trigger responses from other major powers with fundamental interests in maintaining their own access to regional energy supplies, such as Russia and particularly China, which has huge interests in Iran. Simultaneously, the dollar-economy would be seriously undermined, most likely facing imminent collapse in the context of such crises. Which raises pertinent questions about why Britain, the US and Israel are contemplating such a scenario as a viable way of securing their interests. A glimpse of an answer lies in the fact that the post-9/11 military geostrategy of the ‘War on Terror’ does not spring from a position of power, but rather from entirely the opposite. The global system has been crumbling under the weight of its own unsustainability for many years now, and we are fast approaching the convergence of multiple crises that are already interacting fatally as I write. The peak of world oil production, of which the Bush administration is well aware, either has already just happened, or is very close to happening. It is a pivotal event that signals the end of the Oil Age, for all intents and purposes, with escalating demand placing increasing pressure on dwindling supplies. Half the world's oil reserves are, more or less, depleted, which means that it will be technologically, geophysically, increasingly difficult to extract conventional oil.”
UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
OpEdNews, 23 July 2006

"Middle Eastern oil was as essential, in 1956 as now, to the economy and security of the United States, Europe and world trade....The world community had an essential interest in the free flow of oil through the [Suez] canal. That could have been secured only by joint Anglo-American action. Eisenhower decided against such action; Dulles’s conduct convinced Eden that he personally was hostile and untrustworthy. The Suez Crisis was indeed the end of the [British] Empire, but it was a blunder of American policy, for which the United States is still paying a very high price."
Lord William Rees-Mogg
Suez: why I blame it on Ike
London Times, 24 July 2006

Bypassing Suez
Why America Wants Control Of Iraq, Iran, Syria, And Lebanon
Transporting Gulf Oil Directly By Pipeline To The Mediterranean

"At the beginning of the 20th Century King Edward VII ruled over a vast empire with interests in every part of the world. India became increasingly important because it was the second pillar of British power in the world. Moving the Indian army about was extremely important in extending British interests and British influence across the globe and the Suez canal was of course the quick way to do that.   It's very important for the British geopolicital position to ensure the Suez canal remains safe and secure. With this aim in mind Britain had become the only European power to establish a major foothold in the Middle East, in the principalities around the Persian Gulf, in Aden, and in Egypt.... Pouring over a map of the Levant, Sykes and Picot personally drew in the areas they wished to see under their control. Their secret deal amounted to the virtual carve up of the Middle East.... [France was to have Greater Syria and] ... the area...  known as Iraq with its strategic ports, railways, and oil...  was to be under British rule. ... Palestine.... was envisaged as an international zone, except for Haiffa. What the British wanted was the oil of Iraq and they concentrated on getting Iraq and getting a way from Iraq to the Meditteranian in order to transport this oil. So they got Haiffa on the Palestinian coast and they got most of Iraq.  ... Unaware of these secret dealings behind their backs Hussein and Feisal proclaimed independence and in June 1916 attacked the Turkish troops... The Turkish garrason at Mecca was soon overun and the sea port at Jiddha seized... In a pincer movement Britain had launched a campaign from the south west to ensure control of the Suez canal and the Levant, and from the South East it was fighting to secure the oil wells of Iraq... In the east the Ottoman area of  Messoptamia, which included the oil fields of Mossul, was given to Britain as the mandate for Iraq. ... this  was basically the importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement, to divide what was called the fertile crescent between Iraq and Syria, and let Britain get access to the oil of the area and be able to exploit it in the future...."
Promises & Betrayals
The History Channel & Gulf Research Center
Content Productions 2002
Broadcast Monday 14th March  2005 on History Channel - 53 Minutes

<<<---- To USA and Europe

Blue = Pre-War Iraqi Oil Transit Route To Meditteranian Via Arabian Peninsula And Suez Canal (Suez Cannot Take Largest Tankers) Red = Post-War Potential Alternative Route Via Syria/Lebanon/Israel

Yes, Folks, It's 'Opportunity Knocks'
Capitalising On The Hot Political Temperature In The Levant
White House Promotes Escalation of  Violence As It Places An Avaricious Eye On The Middle East's Mediterranean Coast

"Rice will not leave Washington until later today, and it was clear from her pronounced lack of urgency that President George W Bush had torn up previous manuals for Middle East crisis intervention. The White House played down the seriousness of the Lebanon crisis, characterising the death and destruction as the 'birth pangs of a new Middle East'. Officials argued that it was pointless to negotiate with Hezbollah and that only its eradication could create the necessary conditions for a durable political settlement. The crisis was 'an opportunity, not a setback', insisted one senior US official."
Hell in the Holy Lands
Sunday Times, 23 July 2006

“In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government Minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States  '... will go to war with Iran before the end of the year.' As we now know from similar reporting prior to the invasion of Iraq, it's quite possible that the war planning may indeed change repeatedly, and the war may again be postponed. In any case, it's worth noting that the information from a former Labour Minister corroborates expert analyses suggesting that Israel, with US and British support, is deliberately escalating the cycle of retaliation to legitimize the imminent targeting of Iran before year's end.”
UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
OpEdNews, 23 July 2006

'Remaking The Middle East'
US Exploits Israel's Deep Sense Of Insecurity And Shared Need For Oil
In Its Undeclared Energy War Against China

"Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind. An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.... All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment. The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective."
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
Jane's Foreign Report, 16 April 2003

"[Former Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Frank] Gaffney cited the growing scarcity of resources in a world with burgeoning economies and populations, such as China as having the potential to create a 'perfect storm.' Faced with a scenario of increasingly insatiable and expensive demands for energy, countries like the U.S. and China could find themselves at the brink of war."
Report On The Annual Policy Forum Of The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Washington, 6-7 December 2004
RenewableEnergyAccess.com, 14 December 2004

"The world faces the real threat of a new conflict over oil as China competes with existing world powers for scarce resources to feed its growing economy, according to a report published today. The State of the World 2006, released by the Worldwatch Institute, says that last year China became the second- largest importer of oil, after the US...  While environmentalists are concerned about the impact on the world's climate and the drain on its resources, strategists fear that the competition for energy, particularly oil, could destabilise the planet. According to the report, China was nearly self-sufficient in oil in the mid-1990s. But over the past decade its consumption has doubled and it has now overtaken Japan as the second-largest importer of oil, with 3.2 million barrels a day in 2004. It predicts that if the economies of China and India continue to grow at their current rate, the world will not be able to produce enough oil to meet demand by 2050, when consumption will have grown from the current 85 million barrels a day to 200 million barrels. 'Few geologists believe that output will reach even half those levels before beginning to decline,' the report says.  As a result China is already looking for new oil suppliers from Siberia to Sudan, often dealing with notorious regimes, such as the junta in Burma. Of even greater concern is the possibility that open conflict could break out between nations competing for resources or trying to protect their supply lines, such as key trade routes, currently patrolled by the US Navy."
'Find a couple of spare planets or face global oil war'
London Times, 12 January 2006

"A major new alliance is emerging between Iran and China that threatens to undermine U.S. ability to pressure Tehran on its nuclear program, support for extremist groups and refusal to back Arab-Israeli peace efforts. The relationship has grown out of China's soaring energy needs -- crude oil imports surged nearly 40 percent in the first eight months of this year, according to state media -- and Iran's growing appetite for consumer goods for a population that has doubled since the 1979 revolution, Iranian officials and analysts say... Beijing has also provided Iran with advanced military technology, including missile technology, U.S. officials say."
Iran's New Alliance With China Could Cost U.S. Leverage
Washington Post, 17 November 2005

"PNAC's [Project For The New American Century] recommendations about how to wage the war on terrorism post-September 11, 2001, had been taken to heart by administration hawks, particularly in Cheney's and Rumsfeld's offices. This began with an open letter produced by the group on September 20, 2001, which called for extending the anti-terrorism campaign to Iraq, whether or not Baghdad had any role in the September 11 attacks, and siding unequivocally with Israel in its own 'war on terrorism' against the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon's Hezbollah.  Indeed, PNAC  - or, more specifically, Kristol, Kagan and Schmitt - have often acted as mouthpieces for their friends in the administration, not only with respect to the 'war on terrorism', but also on China. During the Hainan spy-plane incident in the spring of 2001, Kristol and Kagan, apparently reflecting the views of their friends in Cheney's and Rumsfeld's offices, repeatedly attacked Secretary of State Colin Powell for his diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis with China quietly and the final settlement that freed the US crew a 'national humiliation'.  The three are also closely associated with other prominent neo-conservatives, such as former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, whose offices are just five floors above PNAC at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and former Central Intelligence Agency chief James Woolsey, as well as Cheney's powerful chief of staff, I Lewis Libby, who was general counsel for the Cox Commission that investigated alleged Chinese theft of US military technology. They have long argued that China represents Washington's greatest long-term threat and have supported Taiwan's independence."
Neo-cons cry 'appeasement' over Taiwan
Asia Times, 11 December 2003

"Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising [oil] reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production. Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes... In little more than a decade, China has changed from a net exporter of oil into the world's second-largest importer, trailing only the United States. Concern is mounting about future prospects for China's domestic oil production, which supplies about two-thirds of the country's crude oil needs. China's government estimates that it will need 600 million tons of crude oil a year by 2020, more than triple its expected output... 'Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force behind the Iraq war,' said Zhu Feng, a security expert at Beijing University. 'For China, it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its security.'... 'If the world oil stocks were exceeded by growth, who would provide energy to China?' said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University, who advises the government on security policy. 'America would protect its own energy supply. The U.S. is China's major competitor.' Such fears involve Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by China. The United States has pledged to help Taiwan should China attack. Officials in Beijing envision being cut off from energy supplies by the U.S. Navy in the event of war... The Iraq war substantially intensified the foreign push. Most immediately, it destroyed China's hopes of developing large assets in Iraq... With so much competition for assets, China has pursued deals with international pariah states that are off-limits to Western oil companies because of sanctions, security concerns or the threat of bad publicity.... Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil and gas purchase agreement with Iran, undercutting efforts by the United States and Europe to isolate Teheran and force it to give up plans for nuclear weapons."
Big Shift in China's Oil Policy
Washington Post, 13 July 2005

"The PNAC group came into the Bush administration quite strong, but not clearly dominant. Then when 9/11 happened, they already had these plans on the shelf, and they could immediately take them down and say, this is how we're going to deal with the war on terror. And Bush liked that. So from that point on the PNAC coalition became dominant. First they had to go through Afghanistan and oust the Taliban, because of their implication in 9/11. But their key near-term goal was ousting Saddam Hussein. You can see that very clearly from a letter they already published on 20 September 2001. There are different currents within the PNAC coalition which had different reasons to want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The classically hard-line neo-conservative current was very regionally focussed: they believed that by ousting Hussein, you could transform the balance of power throughout the Middle East in favour of the US, and of a so- called 'alliance', headed by Israel, but which also included Turkey and Jordan. But there was also a current within PNAC which had a more global vision. For them, the reason to go into Iraq was to assert our ability to control vital resources that might be needed by any possible future rival of the United States anywhere within Eurasia. That might mean China, that might mean Russia, it might even mean the European Union. So for them, going into Iraq, the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, and saying, 'We can come here whenever we want and no one can stop us', was a way to preemptively intimidate China, which badly needs access to Persian Gulf oil to fuel its own development, as well as other potential rivals. Both these currents could very easily come together over Iraq.... [now] there's an election coming up, and in order to regain some of its fast falling popularity, the administration has to show greater moderation. So the result is a relative moderation of US foreign policy. The question is, is that moderation just tactical? And then, if Bush wins in November, the PNAC crowd will reemerge, revived and reunited, and ready to take on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and China?"
Jim Lobe, Inter Press correspondent Washington DC
Al-Ahram Weekly, 15 April 2004

The US-China Oil Syndrome
Local Conflicts Escalating Into 'Something Bigger'

"The U.S. and China, the world's top two oil consuming nations, must work together to avoid a competition for foreign supplies that might lead to military conflict, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said.... China's demand for oil is forecast to grow 2.9 percent a year between now and 2025, and U.S. demand will grow 1.5 percent a year. Efforts by each nation to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition for oil to something 'as hot and dangerous' as the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union, Lieberman, 63, said in a speech today in Washington.... 'There is a problem because China, like the United States, is tying its energy deals to military assistance,' said Michael Klare, author of   'Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.' 'In the short term, it's more a case of stirring up local conflicts, where the U.S. and China are competing for the loyalty of oil producing countries [Note: and access to transit routes to open seas such as the Mediterranean], but that does have a tendency over time to escalate into something bigger,' said Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts."
U.S., China Must Cooperate or Risk Oil Conflict, Lieberman Says
Bloomberg, 30 November 2005

The Israeli People Need To Wake Up
To The Fact That They Are Being Used By Cheney And Rumsfeld

"White House officials said President Bush remains opposed to an immediate cease-fire to stop violence in the Middle East, despite personal pleas from ally Saudi Arabia that he help stop the bloodshed. Saudi King Abdullah beseeched Bush to intervene in Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, where the death toll is approaching 400 after less than two weeks of bombing. Abdullah’s request was hand-delivered to Bush by Saudi officials who requested a meeting Sunday at the White House.... The Bush administration has refused to press for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict. 'Our position on an immediate cease-fire is well known and has not changed,’ said White House national security spokesman Frederick Jones.....  In recent weeks, the Bush administration has blamed Syria, along with Iran, for stoking the recent violence by encouraging Hezbollah to attack northern Israel."
Bush opposed to cease-fire in Lebanon
Associated Press, 24 July 2006

"According to a well-worn script that Israel has grown accustomed to over the years, the arrival of the US secretary of state during wartime means an end to Israeli military advances. But this time the script is different.  Condoleezza Rice, who arrived here Monday evening for a 24-hour visit, is not expected to dictate a cease-fire to Israel. She said as much over the weekend... there is more than just pro-Israel sentiment to Washington's giving Jerusalem a longer military grace period than ever before. Bush is keen on providing Israel more time to pound Hizbullah because while this serves Israel's interests, it also serves America's goals."
US keen on giving Israel time in Lebanon
Jerusalem Post, 25 July 2006

And Just What Are Those Goals?
From The Oil Fields Of Iraq And Iran To The Mediterranean Coast
They Are Little Different To Great Britain's In The Previous Century

"At the beginning of the 20th Century King Edward VII ruled over a vast empire with interests in every part of the world. India became increasingly important because it was the second pillar of British power in the world. Moving the Indian army about was extremely important in extending British interests and British influence across the globe and the Suez canal was of course the quick way to do that.   It's very important for the British geopolicital position to ensure the Suez canal remains safe and secure. With this aim in mind Britain had become the only European power to establish a major foothold in the Middle East, in the principalities around the Persian Gulf, in Aden, and in Egypt.... Pouring over a map of the Levant, Sykes and Picot personally drew in the areas they wished to see under their control. Their secret deal amounted to the virtual carve up of the Middle East.... [France was to have Greater Syria and] ... the area...  known as Iraq with its strategic ports, railways, and oil...  was to be under British rule. ... Palestine.... was envisaged as an international zone, except for Haiffa. What the British wanted was the oil of Iraq and they concentrated on getting Iraq and getting a way from Iraq to the Meditteranian in order to transport this oil. So they got Haiffa on the Palestinian coast and they got most of Iraq.  ... Unaware of these secret dealings behind their backs Hussein and Feisal proclaimed independence and in June 1916 attacked the Turkish troops... The Turkish garrason at Mecca was soon overun and the sea port at Jiddha seized... In a pincer movement Britain had launched a campaign from the south west to ensure control of the Suez canal and the Levant, and from the South East it was fighting to secure the oil wells of Iraq... In the east the Ottoman area of  Messoptamia, which included the oil fields of Mossul, was given to Britain as the mandate for Iraq. ... this  was basically the importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement, to divide what was called the fertile crescent between Iraq and Syria, and let Britain get access to the oil of the area and be able to exploit it in the future...."
Promises & Betrayals
The History Channel & Gulf Research Center
Content Productions 2002
Broadcast Monday 14th March  2005 on History Channel - 53 Minutes

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan [Note: all of which border existing or potential oil shipping routes for Persian Gulf oil].... He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either....I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."
General Wesley Clark
'Winning Modern Wars', p 130

“In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government Minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States  '... will go to war with Iran before the end of the year.' As we now know from similar reporting prior to the invasion of Iraq, it's quite possible that the war planning may indeed change repeatedly, and the war may again be postponed. In any case, it's worth noting that the information from a former Labour Minister corroborates expert analyses suggesting that Israel, with US and British support, is deliberately escalating the cycle of retaliation to legitimize the imminent targeting of Iran before year's end. Let us remind ourselves, for instance, of US Vice President Cheney's assertions recorded on MSNBC over a year ago. He described Iran as being ‘right at the top of the list’ o