Americans are unfortunately severely reluctant to disbelieve the lies that normally spew forth from the US Government about foreign countries and especially about foreign countries that it invades or wants to invade. Consider, for examples, the lies that were told against Iraq when Saddam Hussein ruled it, or about Libya when Muammar Gaddafi ruled it, or about Iran right now. But Americans widely believe their Government’s lies, nonetheless.
On Friday, January 3rd, the Republican Fox ‘News’ channel headlined “Rose McGowan, John Cusack bash killing of Iran’s S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i, slam Trump” (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-twitter-apology-iran-killing-suleimani-US-held-hostage-terrorist-regime), and reported the two actors’ opposition to the Republican US President Trump’s violation of Iraqi sovereignty that day, and to his assassination at the Bagdad airport of Iran’s #2 leader, General Qasem S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i, as well as Trump’s murders there of some Iraqis, and of some other Iranians.
To judge from the “Best” (most-liked) reader-comments at that ‘news’-report, Trump will have at least that Republican audience behind him regarding this action by him, though what he did there could spark World War III, and though the beneficiaries of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush’s 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq haven’t been ordinary people such as those thousands of Republican commenters are, but instead have been, and are, billionaires from around the world who invested in the privatization of Iraq’s oil, which resulted from that invasion. For a far right audience such as that – people who cannot distinguish between nationalism and patriotism, and who know only nationalism – the most-liked comment was “Rose [McGowan], you do realize that in Iran, if you had worn that dress made of nothing but chains, you would have been stoned to death? Congratulations on being the new Jane Fonda.” That person, “JanWub1,” didn’t think, at all, about the US Government’s lies that had persuaded the American public ( (http://web.archive.org/web/20190613044750/https://washingtonsblog.com/2018/04/US-and-its-press-lie-americans-into-invasions-routinely.html) to boost their approval of George W. Bush from 57% immediately before the invasion to 71% immediately after (https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.asp) his lie based international war crime in invading Iraq, and that person and everyone who clicked “Like” on it had obviously learned nothing from that historical example, nor did the individual commenter even so much as just mention the possibility of Trump’s having sparked WWIII on that occasion, but instead “JanWub1” personalized the issue to that commenter’s contempt and hatred of an actress who had opposed that 2003 international war crime against Iraq by the USA, and transferred that hatred against her onto the present two thespians, who oppose this President’s illegal invasion and murders.
So: how do we know who actually benefitted from that international war crime – the invasion and military occupation of Iraq?
Back on 15 April 2013, a rare entirely honest CNN news report about Iraq was published online, from the independent journalist Antonia Juhasz, who headlined “Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil” (https://edition.CNN.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html). She wrote that:
In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush’s first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps (https://www.judicialwatch.org/maps-and-charts-of-iraqi-oil-fields/) outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity.
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in 2004 (http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/suskind.htm), “Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly.”
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF: http://www.wtrg.com/Energy-Report/National-Energy-Policy.pdf), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq. (…)
Juhasz made clear that all of the bombs and the corpses were done for investors in large international oil companies – not only for US companies, but for the benefit of mega oil investors from all countries. Apparently, George W. Bush was a libertarian, who believed in the gospel of economic competition as being what the world needs more of – and not just more of American oil. She noted:
The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq’s oil sector.
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq’s oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy, or hire a majority of local workers.
Iraq’s oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (https://www.iea.org/topics/world-energy-outlook, still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq’s state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country. (…)
The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% (https://www.iea.org/topics/world-energy-outlook) of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor (https://yourmiddleeast.com/2012/09/16/an-iraqi-oil-executiveaes-perspective-on-bureaucracy-and-paranoia/).
In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested (https://www.reuters.com/article/US-iraq-oil-protest/jobs-protesters-break-into-iraqs-west-qurna-2-oilfield-idUSBRE9230G520130304) at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil’s super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment (https://www.iraqoilreport.com/news/basra-farmers-protest-exxon-encroachment-9891/) for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.
The Iraqi government serve as gendarmes for foreign oil companies, and for foreign oil workers. The profits, and the jobs, go abroad. The destruction of Iraq (http://archive.is/LN66u) was done for those oil companies – it was done for the investors who own them.
Saddam Hussein was killed for refusing to cooperate with this type of plan for his country.
On 1 January 2020 (http://archive.is/DDax1), 24 international oil giants were extracting and selling Iraq’s oil, and only ExxonMobil was American-based. Five years earlier, back on 20 March 2015 (http://archive.is/Xjqov), 28 were, and 6 of them were American: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Heritage, Hunt, Marathon, and Occidental. Perhaps Iraq’s Government, during the past five years, has been increasingly trying to free itself from the grip of the US regime, and maybe that’s the reason why five of the six US firms that were in Iraq in 2015 have left.
Also on January 1st of 2020, Abbas Kadhim, of the nonprofit NATO public relations arm the Atlantic Council, headlined “New low in US-Iraq relations: What’s next for 2020” (https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/new-low-in-US-iraq-relations-whats-next-for-2020/), and he opened by saying that, “In early 2019, I predicted that US forces would remain in Iraq this past year despite calls in parliament to pass a law mandating their withdrawal. My prediction was right. My prediction for 2020 is that no US forces will remain in Iraq by the end of the year. As someone who firmly believes in the importance of robust US-Iraq ties and works hard to help both sides improve and strengthen the relationship, I am saddened at this recent deterioration and am concerned about the future.”
Donald Trump had tweeted just the day before, on December 31st (http://archive.is/hWHYw), “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Later on, that day, he tweeted (http://archive.is/35nK9), “Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat.”
Whether or not Iran had had anything to do with the attacks which had precipitated Trump’s “Threat” against Iran isn’t known, any more than it was known, when we invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003, whether or not there were any WMD’s in Iraq after the UN had destroyed all of them in 1998. Everything that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, etc., had said about that were lies, which the US ‘news’-media refused to expose as being lies (http://archive.is/b8LpB) from the Government. Donald Trump is just as much a liar as they were, and as Barack Obama was (https://www.europereloaded.com/the-obama-regimes-plan-to-seize-the-russian-naval-base-in-crimea/); so, when Trump followed through on his “Threat” against Iran, inside Iraq, on January 3rd, one can’t reasonably assume that it would be any more justifiable than our invasion of Iraq was, or than our conquest of Ukraine by means of a bloody coup in 2014 was (http://archive.is/hwU1M), or than our participation in the destruction of Libya in 2011 (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/11/08/consequences-of-US–NATO-destruction-libya/) was, or than our destruction of Syria (https://thesaker.is/further-proof-US–UK-france-committed-war-crime-on-14-april-2018/) is, or than our assistance to the Sauds’ destruction of Yemen is, or than our destruction of Bolivia for its lithium is.
All of that has been simply fascism, American-style. America’s Republicans apparently like it, but perhaps America’s Democrats won’t like it in this instance (since its from a Republican), and maybe even the independents won’t. However, the reader-comments (https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-jabs-dems-10-word-tweet-iran-escalation#comment_stream) at Zero Hedge, a non-mainstream, independent libertarian news-site, are unconcerned with the sheer psychopathy and enormous danger of Trump’s murders in Iraq on January 3rd, and are concerned almost only with whether or not what he did will be of benefit to Americans; so, perhaps independents will turn out to be largely favorable toward what Trump did here. Also: viewer-comments at a January 3rd YouTube “Pakistan: S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i killing sparks outrage among Shia community” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3lxNdCm1D) were rabidly hostile against the demonstrators, like a typical comment there, “feel American power, infidels,” is. This is today’s supremacist America. It’s not just the Republican Trump’s “Make America Great Again”; it is also the Democrat Obama’s “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation” (http://archive.is/R1Gbd). Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. – all other nations than the US – are “dispensable,” according to Americans in both Parties. Hello, Hitler, here?
Trump has started off the US Presidential ‘election’ (https://off-guardian.org/2019/02/18/how-americas-dictatorship-works/) year of 2020 with a bang, and he’s well-supported by America’s Republican billionaires, but it’s still doubtful whether he will get anything like the 14% boost in approval-rating that Bush did by raping Iraq for global oil-investors, on 20 March 2003. Time will quickly tell. However, already on January 3rd, the leader of Democrats in the US Senate, Charles Schumer, said on the Senate floor, that “No one should shed a tear over his [Soleimani’s] death” (http://archive.is/yFd3E, Schumer objected only that he had not received “any advance notification or consultation” about the assassination and murders). Some of the Democratic Presidential candidates have refused to condemn Trump’s action (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/trump-iran-soleimani-strike-democrats-reaction). Everyone will be looking at the polling-numbers. And those will reflect the result of what America’s billionaires’ (or “the mainstream”) ‘news’-media present about this matter, to their respective publics. It is conceivable that Trump could achieve bipartisan support for entirely needlessly starting WWIII. This could be the way that today’s Americans are.
Later in the day of January 3rd, Reuters headlined a news-report that, if true, is historically significant about all of this matter, “Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack US forces in Iraq” (https://www.reuters.com/article/US-iraq-security-S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-US-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z). Written by “Reuters staff,” it opened:
In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the US embassy complex in Baghdad.
The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.
The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i’s plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.
S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i’s efforts ended up provoking the US attack on Friday that killed him and Muhandis, marking a major escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran. (…)
Obviously, if that report is true, then Trump had cause to do on January 3rd what he did. Even his having not given anyone in Congress advance-notice about it would have been justifiable as this action’s being an emergency opportunity and in accord with his Commander-in-Chief powers to do in order to protect the Embassy. It wouldn’t justify the psychopathically pro US regime reader comments earlier that day on January 3rd about what Trump had done, because all of recent American history is full of lies by the US Government in order to ‘justify’ its invasions against countries that neither threatened nor perpetrated invasion of the United States. However, if that Reuters report is true, then what Trump had done on January 3rd was done as an authentic US national-security matter, in response to what S–o–l–e–i–m–a–n–i and his colleagues were doing. This isn’t necessarily to say that what Soleimani and his colleagues were doing there would have been unjustified. The United States, ever since its 1953 coup against Iran, has been an oppressive foreign power – Iran’s enemy – and the US, since at least its 2003 invasion against Iraq, is also Iraq’s enemy. Neither Iran nor Iraq ever endangered the national security of the United States. All of the aggressions have instead been by the United States. However, if this Reuters report is true, then the appropriate response by the Governments of US, Iraq, and Iran, would be as follows:
Trump would announce that he is herewith cancelling sanctions against Iran and restoring US participation in the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action), which in 2015 was signed by China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and then the entire European Union. Iran would then announce that it is willing to discuss with all of the signatories to that agreement, if a majority of them wish to do so, international negotiations regarding possible changes (amendments) to be made to that agreement. The United States would then offer, separately, and on a strictly bi-lateral US-Iran basis, to negotiate with Iran a settlement to all outstanding issues between the two nations, so that they may proceed forward with normal diplomatic relations, on a peaceful instead of mutually hostile, foundation.
Trump also would announce that he is seeking negotiations with Iraq about a total withdrawal from Iraq and closure of the US Embassy there, to be replaced by a far smaller US Embassy.
Trump would initiate this as a package deal confidentially offered by him to Khamenei – all steps of it – in advance of any carrying out of the steps, and initiated by him soon enough to ward off any retaliatory action by Iran, so as to avoid further escalation of the hostilities, which otherwise would likely escalate to a widespread and possibly global war. In other words, this direct communication between the two should already have been sought by Trump (if the Reuters article is true, this should have been planned by him at the very moment he started seeking an opportunity to assassinate Soleimani).
I do not expect Trump to do any of that, not even the first step, and not even the offer to Khamenei; and Iran is in no position to make the first step, in any case (since the US had started the mutual hostilities between the two nations in 1953). However (assuming the truthfulness of the Reuters article), if Trump does, at least make the offer and then do the first step (ending sanctions), then I think that he will easily win re-election, regardless of whom the Democratic nominee will be. If he can re-establish friendly relations with Iran, then that will be a diplomatic achievement of historic proportions, the best and most important in decades. No one would then be able to deny it. He would, in fact, then deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize (which Obama never deserved to win, though he did win it). But I don’t expect any of that to happen, because it would be exactly contrary to the way that any recent US President has behaved, and because many in power in the United States would be furious against him if he did do it.
Furthermore, the Reuters report might be a lie, like so many other US and allied ‘news’ reports are.
In any case, however: The answer to the headline-question “Who the Winners Are from America’s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran” is: the owners of US-and-allied international oil and gas corporations. They were served when the US regime in 1953 overthrew Iran’s democratically elected progressive Government and installed the brutal Shah to end Iran’s democracy and to control the country, and when he then privatized the National Iranian Oil company and cut American-and-allied aristocrats in on the profits from sales of Iranian oil. The founding members of that privatization in 1954 (https://www.anasalhajji.com/publications/energy-geopolitics/trump-iran-oil-lessons-irans-oil-history) were British Petroleum (40%), Royal Dutch Shell 14% (Shell now), French Compagnie Française des Pétroles (CFP) 6% (Total now), Gulf Oil 8% (now Chevron), and the four American partners of Aramco 32% (8% each). And they were served, yet again, when George W. Bush did the same to Iraq by means of an outright invasion (instead of like Eisenhower’s 1953 method, coup) in 2003.
America’s international oil (and other international extractions) corporations – and not only America’s ‘defense’ contractors – need to be nationalized, so that these ceaseless “regime-change Wars” by the US regime will be able to cease. Otherwise, the World will self-destruct by War, if not subsequently by global burnout (which is likely only over a much longer time-frame).
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.