Bush's World War Three

By Michel Chossudovsky
From Global Research
2007

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously...." (George W. Bush, 17 October 2007)

"I believe that. I believe that [the revolt of passengers on the hijacked flight 93 on September 11, 2001] was the first counter-attack to World War III." (George W. Bush, May 6, 2006)

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table." George W. Bush, February 2005)

We are not living in a sound and rational World, where far-reaching decisions by the US President are based on an understanding of their likely consequences.

A World War III is no longer a hypothetical scenario. During the Cold War, the concept of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) was put forth. An understanding of the devastating consequences of nuclear war largely contributed to avoiding the outbreak of war between the US and the Soviet Union.

Today, in the post-Cold war era, no such understanding prevails. The specter of a nuclear holocaust, which haunted the world for half a century has been relegated to the status of "collateral damage".

US foreign policy under the Neocons is based on a diabolical and criminal agenda. The "war on terrorism" is a lie; Iran does not constitute a threat to global security as confirmed by a recent IAEA report. Iran does not constitute a threat to Israel.

The US president is a liar, who believes his own lies. While Iran's non existent nukes are said to constitute a lethal and deadly threat, so-called tactical nuclear weapons "Made in America" are described in Pentagon documents as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population".

In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda. A preemptive nuclear attack on Iran is upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to global security.

And now the US Head of State, who has a limited understanding of geopolitics, let alone geography, is hinting that if Iran does not give up its nonexistent nuclear weapons program, we might be reluctantly forced into in a World War III situation. Bush has insinuated that as Commander in Chief, he could decide to launch a war on Iran, which would result in World War III.

"Dr. Strangelove rides again." In an utterly twisted logic, World War III is presented by the US President as a means to preventing collateral damage.

The war would be triggered by Iran, who has refused to abide by the "reasonable demands" of "the international community". Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of wanting to start World War III.

Media Blackout
World public opinion has its eyes riveted on the cataclysm of "global warming". World War III on the other hand is not front page news. We are talking about the loss of tens of thousands of lives: the consequences of the US military agenda which includes the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in a very concrete way threatens the future of humanity.

At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the coalition fully understand that such an action will result in a World War III scenario. Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon. US sponsored war games have even foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China.

World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime. It is contained in a document published in September 2000 by the Project of the New American Century (PNAC),

The PNAC's declared objectives imply a "long war", a global war without borders::

"defend the American homeland;

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;"

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential elections. The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest.

The pre-emptive nuclear doctrine contained in the Nuclear Posture Review is supported by the Republican Party and Washington’s conservative think-tanks

George W. Bush is an instrument of powerful economic interests. A preemptive war on Iran has widespread support by the US Congress, it is also supported by America's European partners and allies. Leading Republicans have expressed their support for a preemptive World War III scenario. In a 2006 interview at the height of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon (July 16, 2007), former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich candidly acknowledged:

"We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.

The Bush Administration has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the Cold War era.

In a classified Pentagon document (Nuclear Posture Review) presented to the US Senate in early 2002, the Bush Administration established so-called "contingency plans" for an offensive "first strike use" of nuclear weapons, not only against the "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea), but also against Russia and China.


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America’s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.




Oil Industry Subsidies for Dummies

By Dallas Kachan
From Cleantech.com
2007

Wonder how big oil got big? Here's an insider's look at fossil fuel subsidies, how they've worked until recently, and what greentech industries might expect in America soon if the newly-Democratic U.S. Congress gets its way.

On news this week that the newly-elected U.S. Democratic congress is considering playing Robin Hood, and taking at least some money previously allocated for oil and gas and reallocating it to renewable energy, we thought it'd be useful to look into fossil fuel subsidies and how they work.

First - how much money are we talking about? Figuring out exactly, or even roughly, how much oil companies receive in subsidy turns out to be a complicated challenge.

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. governments has generally propped the industry up with:

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free

Research-and-development programs at low or no cost

Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions

Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire

Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods

Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Construction and protection of the nation's highway system

Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?

Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid
While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry. Even yours (I'll bet you work in cleantech/greentech!) For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants. Solar wouldn't be what it's become without significant German, Californian, U.S. federal and other incentives. Ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. enjoy large subsidies (details, if interested, here), but let's resist getting into the rat-hole of agricultural industry subsidies.

Subsidies, per se, aren't a bad thing. How does the oil industry defend its substantial incentives?

Energy security - The fossil fuel industry has, rightfully, long pointed to the strategic nature of a company's oil and gas supply. Theirs is an industry that can't afford to go away, they argue.

Environmental compliance - Far from being big beneficiaries, some oil companies claim they are net victims. They point to gasoline taxes and environmental regulations, such as fuel-efficiency standards for new vehicles.

Bolsters domestic production - Supporters of drilling incentives say they make sense for a country that wants to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and whose biggest untapped reserves are in water just offshore, albeit thousands of feet deep.

Defense requirements - Some have suggested that the demands of defending Middle Eastern oil fields added (pre-Iraq war that is) between $10 billion and $20 billion a year in subsidies to the true cost of oil.

Which begs the question - even if America greatly reduced its imports of oil, would it necessarily reduce its military activity in the Gulf region?

It's not really that much money - A few years ago, Ronald Sutherland, an energy economist affiliated with the Cato Institute, a think-tank in Washington, used statistics from the Department of Energy to argue that oil actually gets rather little at the end of the day. All told, after subtracting this and allowing for that, he suggested oil receives less than a billion dollars in subsidies, in all.

Critics of oil subsidies in America, however, maintain that:

Subsidies don't increase domestic production - A few weeks ago, a U.S. Interior Department report obtained by the New York Times suggested that the billions of dollars American oil companies stand to benefit from as incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (royalties they wouldn't otherwise have to pay the government) wouldn't add appreciably to any increase in production. Says an analyst who worked on the report, "if they took that money, they could buy a whole lot more oil with it on the open market."

The U.S. gives far too much away - Industry analysts who compare oil policies around the world say the United States is much more generous to oil companies than most other countries, demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters. In the U.S., the government’s take - royalties as well as corporate taxes - works out to be about 40 percent of revenue from oil and gas produced on federal property, according to Van Meurs Associates, an industry consulting firm that compares the taxes of all oil-producing countries. By contrast, according to Van Meurs, the worldwide average government take is about 60 to 65 percent. The United States has even increased some of its incentives in recent years, while dozens of other countries demanded a bigger share of their oil producers' revenue. This is the low hanging fruit Democratic lawmakers are eying.

In 2004, the then-Republican Congress passed a manufacturing tax cut that critics said gave unnecessary incentives to the oil industry. Democratic leaders this week said they want this rolled back, and want to capture lost royalties from companies drilling in the gulf coast. They're also considering rolling back the Energy Policy Act of 2005, according to the Washington Post, an act supported by many Democrats.

While the Democratic U.S. Congress says it wants to change the historic ratio of the flow of subsidies for fossil fuels vs. that of renewables, don't expect government floodgates to open immediately for greentech/cleantech companies.

There's no clear consensus even among Democrats as to how the new funds should be used. Some lawmakers want public hearings to figure out how the money should be divided. It will likely be set aside in the short term while the government determines how to put it to use.

One thing is certain, however. While the fat lady, as they say, hasn't quite sung - and likely isn't even practicing scales, yet - this week marked the first steps on a long road to reshaping American petroleum policy. And, at the same time, potentially infusing renewable greentech energy sectors with a vigor that would have been only a dream a year ago.

Dallas Kachan is publisher and acting editor of Inside Greentech. The closest thing he ever got to a subsidy was a sandwich shop in Iowa.



Back To Main Menu