Thread: US imperial system in the Middle East

After World War II, the United States took over much of the former British colonies which included the Middle East. A British diplomat in Washington told Foreign Secretary Bevin on 9 August 1945 that

The United States is also now groping toward a new order of things in which Great Britain will be expected to take her place as junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under American aegis.

Mr. Bevin said:

Sometimes in these negotiations, I make the confession, that [Washington's] power politics seem to me to be naked and unashamed.

British officials denounced:

the economic imperialism of American business interests, which is quite active under the cloak of a benevolent and avuncular internationalism [and is] attempting to elbow us out.

The Financial Times observes that:

The US and its main allies shored up local despots [in the Middle East] in the interests of stability and cheap oil.

US imperial system in the Middle East outlined in the internal documents

In a staff discussion, President Eisenhower observed that:

The trouble is that we have a campaign of hatred against us [in the Middle East], not by the governments but by the people.

The reasons for this "campaign of hatred" were explained by the National Security Council:

In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.

Furthermore, the NSC acknowledged that the perception is correct:

Our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries.

The "conservative groupings" serving US interests:

forms a loose coalition of regimes that look to the US for aid because of their common interest in the existing system and opposition to the forces of revolution represented by the radicals.

An NSC Memorandum identified "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to U.S. interests," declaring that:

The United States must] endeavor to establish an effective working relationship with Arab nationalism while at the same time seeking constructively to influence and stabilize the movement and to contain its outward thrust, and recognizing that a policy of U.S. accommodation to radical pan-Arab nationalism as symbolized by Nasser would include many elements contrary to U.S. interests.

The NSC warned of the dangers of Arab nationalism, observing that:

..The essentially neutralist character of radical pan-Arab nationalism may make it incompatible with maintenance of the special political, military and economic interests comprising the Western strategic position in the area. Pressures on Western oil companies for arrangements more favorable to producing and transit countries will mount.

However:

At least as long as conservative governments remain in power in the producing countries, arrangements acceptable to Western interests can probably be worked out.

As a last resort, the National Security Council advised that:

If we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and to hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East.

The only way to guarantee continued access to Persian Gulf oil on acceptable terms is to insist on maintaining the present concessions and be prepared to defend our present position by force if necessary.

Thus explains the basic US imperial designs for the Middle East- a system which is now "disintigrating in between our eyes."

I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate the metric system...

Diplomatic historian Geoffrey Warner assessed that:

President Roosevelt was aiming at United States hegemony in the postwar world.

There is also, "Petroleum Policy of the United States," Memorandum of U.S. Department of State, April 11, 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944, Vol. V ("The Near East, South Asia, Africa, The Far East"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp. 27-33. An excerpt (p. 30):

Furthermore, and of greater importance, United States policy should, in general, aim to assure to this country, in the interest of security, a substantial and geographically diversified holding of foreign petroleum resources in the hands of United States nationals. This would involve the preservation of the absolute position presently obtaining, and therefore vigilant protection of existing concessions in United States hands coupled with insistence upon the Open Door principle of equal opportunity for United States companies in new areas.

Wait, so did we actually come out ahead in oil with Libya or did he just make that up so the situation fit his narrative where any violent dictator that hates the US is good and therefore any policy against them is the evil triumvate or whatever in action for purely class warfare related concerns?

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Wait, so did we actually come out ahead in oil with Libya or did he just make that up so the situation fit his narrative where any violent dictator that hates the US is good and therefore any policy against them is the evil triumvate or whatever in action for purely class warfare related concerns?

McClatchy Newspapers: WikiLeaks cables show that it was all about the oil in Libya

Originally Posted by Horhey

McClatchy Newspapers: WikiLeaks cables show that it was all about the oil in Libya

Um. Look, I know you're all in on this one and on this issue your perceptions are completely locked. But we're here essentially as recreation right? And nobody else here seems to be willing to watch your video or discuss it. So for the sake of argument and my curiosity if we actually gained any kind of oil edge out of this, can you notice that even the people in the video say that's speculation, as opposed to actually showing anything. There are some things acknowledging that we know there is oil in Libya, and seperate things saying we're trying to use diplomacy to keep Russia from having a monoploy on European energy pipelines. Which, considering how Russia has use threats of cutting off energy as a weapon against Europe isn't unreasonable at all. And if I remember the pic from the vid correctly the pipeline Russia wanted didn't even go through Libya.

And again that doesn't relate to how things came out. I recal hearing something about China setting up shop there for instance.

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Um. Look, I know you're all in on this one and on this issue your perceptions are completely locked. But we're here essentially as recreation right? And nobody else here seems to be willing to watch your video or discuss it. So for the sake of argument and my curiosity if we actually gained any kind of oil edge out of this, can you notice that even the people in the video say that's speculation, as opposed to actually showing anything.

Ok: "Total" Victory in Libya

And no. They dont say it's "speculation." They say "those who say it's not about oil arent reading Wikileaks." "It is all about oil." If this was about an official enemy, you would not hesitate to perceive the obvious.

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Wait, so did we actually come out ahead in oil with Libya or did he just make that up so the situation fit his narrative where any violent dictator that hates the US is good and therefore any policy against them is the evil triumvate or whatever in action for purely class warfare related concerns?

This is the repeating pattern:
Popular leftist leader/group in foreign country gains political influence, usually through representative democracy
When they threaten the status quo of imperialist exploitation and looting, the US gets concerned
CIA uses sabotage, torture, violence, - pretty much whatever it takes - and with the help of giant corperations and the country's military overthrows the government. They install a "business-friendly" dictator and help to set up their secret police network and institutions of repression
Dictator gains more and more influence, then finally decides to cut ties with the US for their own gain
The mainstream media has a miraculous (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amnesia and forgets that the western governments are the ones who set up the regime, suddenly they are repressive dictatorships and not a "valued ally"

Originally Posted by RedRepublic

This is the repeating pattern:
Popular leftist leader/group in foreign country gains political influence, usually through representative democracy
When they threaten the status quo of imperialist exploitation and looting, the US gets concerned
CIA uses sabotage, torture, violence, - pretty much whatever it takes - and with the help of giant corperations and the country's military overthrows the government. They install a "business-friendly" dictator and help to set up their secret police network and institutions of repression
Dictator gains more and more influence, then finally decides to cut ties with the US for their own gain
The mainstream media has a miraculous (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amnesia and forgets that the western governments are the ones who set up the regime, suddenly they are repressive dictatorships and not a "valued ally"

I don't concur that Gadafalanistani(*)(*)(*)(*)fac e was a good person. He killed his own people to silence dissent. His opposition to the United States was justifiable in my own views as well. He had Oil and virtually no foreign debt other than a small stock of spending cash. So the USA got involved where it had no business to. I imagine if America would be more diplomatic with the Middle East we would have gotten a lot more returns on the Oil we need. Either that or we would have something else to fuel our cars by now...

The point is, Islamism is growing. They where pushing for this in the Arab World for years and I imagine they won't stop till the Caliphate is restored. If we had a problem with Libya we should have had the same problem with Islamists in Libya and Egypt and Syria as well and stay the hell out of it.

End foreign aide to every nation immediately. It's counterproductive and any assertion otherwise is not correct and not based in fact.