US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

by ignored_one 37 Replies latest social current

  • ignored_one
    ignored_one

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm

    BBC NEWS US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973 by Paul Reynolds
    BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
    The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

    The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

    It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

    The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.

    Warning from US

    The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.

    The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where Iraq might be tempted to intervene
    British assessment The ambassador quoted Mr Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

    The oil embargo was begun by Arab governments during the Yom Kippur or October war between Israel and Egypt and Syria, which left Israel in a strong position.

    It was designed to put pressure on the West to get Israel to make concessions. The embargo was aimed mainly at the United States but many other countries were affected.

    The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oilfields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

    This phrase indicates some knowledge of American plans.

    Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.

    Airborne troops

    The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel.

    "We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi," it said.

    Two divisions would then be flown in but the report gives a warning that the occupation might have to last 10 years. It would also alienate the Arab world and provoke a confrontation with the Soviet Union, though the JIC did not think that Moscow would use military force itself.

    British role expected

    There was a potential task for the British. The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge, that the US might want Britain to capture the Abu Dhabi oilfields as some British officers were seconded to the Abu Dhabi defence force.

    "For this reason, the Americans might ask the UK to undertake this particular operation," it says.

    The prospect of the British military fighting seconded British officers is not gone into.

    The assessment reflects on the danger of action by Iraq, whose vice president at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein.

    "The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait, where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says.

    It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."

    In a follow up, a Foreign Office official noted: "Lord Carrington [the defence secretary] has suggested that some discreet contingency planning be put in hand"

    In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm

    Published: 2004/01/01 00:17:37 GMT

    © BBC MMIV

    -

    Ignored One.

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    The US military has plans to invade just about every country in the world.

  • foreword
    foreword

    only if it's profitable that is...

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Foreword,

    Modern war is NEVER profitable...ever.

    The BBC has been known to makes stuff up before too...so trust this at your own risk. Foreword, care to share how the war with Iraq has been profitable for the US?

  • berten
    berten

    >...Modern war is NEVER profitable...ever.

    Except for the weapons dealers of course :-)

  • foreword
    foreword

    Yeru, if you can't make the parallel between the Iraq war and the sudden surge in the stock market...well...you got to be blind...

  • freeman
    freeman

    Yeru,

    I?ll bet the bulk of this story is most likely true, however it?s not exactly real news to people that understand military strategy, as obviously you do. In addition to plans on invading the Middle East, the US government likely has general plans on military campaigns against many of our current allies too. Why? Because the political and military conditions in the world can change in a heartbeat, and it is only prudent to be as best prepared as we can.

    Freeman

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Folks,

    Mind you, I have no doubt in my military mind that the United States had plans to seize the oil fields if we thought it became necessary...that's called prudent military planning. My contention is that it wasn't as dire or close as the BBC report would have you believe.

    In addition to plans on invading the Middle East, the US government likely has general plans on military campaigns against many of our current allies too. Why? Because the political and military conditions in the world can change in a heartbeat, and it is only prudent to be as best prepared as we can.

    I couldn't agree more...in fact...I said that in my first post to this thread.

    Yeru, if you can't make the parallel between the Iraq war and the sudden surge in the stock market...well...you got to be blind...

    Foreword...unless the stocks that have risen are military related stocks...then there is no parallel...though one must wonder if the Bush Tax cuts (to include the tax cut concerning stock dividends being taxed twice) might have something to do with it...or the fact that the economy is growing ...and doing so in NON MILITARY sectors of the economy.

    ...Modern war is NEVER profitable...ever.

    Except for the weapons dealers of course :-)

    Is it your contention, then, that these "weapons dealers" run the US? If so...where's the proof?

    Folks...let's think back to the oil embargo...which I remember quite well...the first issue...the US didn't learn it's lesson at all...we're even more dependent on foriegn oil than ever...and all efforts to break that dependency are blocked by the Environmental crowd...who apparently didn't mind sitting in line for hours to get their 10 gallons of gas for their car....nor have alternatives been developed...and I do blame the oil companies for that.

    The whole reason for the Embargo was because the Arab invasion of Israel in 1973 failed...miserably...and the Arabs were trying to break US support for Israel...thank God we stuck it out.

    Don't make too much of this...we also have plans for the invasion of Cuba...and came much closer to initiating those plans.

  • berten
    berten

    >...Is it your contention, then, that these "weapons dealers" run the US? If so...where's the proof?

    So I guess that in your opinion the dealers have *no* influence at all on US war policy? Yeah right :-)

    As for proof;just look at the new *toys* they got to try out at last year's war in Iraq...

  • foreword
    foreword
    unless the stocks that have risen are military related stocks...then there is no parallel...though one must wonder if the Bush Tax cuts (to include the tax cut concerning stock dividends being taxed twice) might have something to do with it...or the fact that the economy is growing ...and doing so in NON MILITARY sectors of the economy.

    Absolutely not, technology is the way this war is fought. I'd be curious to see their communications and information databases budgets. Nasdaq up 50 % this year. Also the renewal of arsenals can be put on the back burner since you have showed to the world in Baghdad that you can kick ass. They don't know for sure if you've got more of it or not. Right? So that can wait, money can move somewhere else.

    The tax cuts, of course they must've had an effect. I guess time will tell if it wasn't borrowed money.

    we're even more dependent on foriegn oil than ever...and all efforts to break that dependency are blocked by the Environmental crowd...who apparently didn't mind sitting in line for hours to get their 10 gallons of gas for their car....nor have alternatives been developed...and I do blame the oil companies for that.

    Do you realize how in one parapraph you have summed up the situation? As I recall, and I'm pretty sure this is a fact, isn't your president an oil man?

    And you'll accuse environmental groups for not wanting you to go and secure those oil fields for yourself so you can keep on living and promoting a lifestyle which puts strains on the environment. Why do you believe that only you have a right to that oil?

    For you I guess, it's important to continue using oil as an energy source, even if it's effects has an impact on the environment. Until of course one day, you'll have to change and you won't have a choice. Why not make that choice now. We don't really need the flashing lights of Vegas , NY, LA., do we?

    Alternatives exist if you want to throw the rignt amount of money at it. The more you develop something, the cheaper it gets. That's why you're dependant on oil. And yes the oil men are guitly of making sure other alternatives don't get the funding. But I'd be curious to know how much of these alternatives are owned by people in the oil business.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit