Corruption of Power the Root Cause of Hussein, Qadaffi, Mubarak's Fall-ME Oil was/is Only a Tool

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 28, 2011 at 17:10

In looking at the exchanges here, under the premise of what if there were no oil in the Middle East, what would be different? It is very suggestive here that the entire fabric of Middle East politics would be limited to the Ottoman Turks still being in power, for the western powers would have no real or practical reasons for deposing the status quo of the post World war 1 economics of the region; or would have been another reason? Let us fast-forward to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by a western power….no, wait, that was Saddam Hussein. What did he leave behind but tantrums of envy as the oil fields were ignited in a parting retributive gesture towards those for whom he held nothing but contempt. Pride was his downfall.

And in retaliation for the unmitigated temerity of the UN and coalition powers, Israel was targeted and bombed by SCUD missiles ordered by Saddam Hussein. Only in the most restrained and calm sense of self-control did Israel refrain from responding in kind manner.

Leave us not then think of Saddam Hussein as a lonely goat-herder from Tikrit who took a chance at being a world player and fell into a den of thieves, when in reality he was the thief that took Iraq from being a desert community that incidentally benefitted from its own oil fortunes, and Saddam was not content to let that be sufficient. He played the host to a series of follies of his own doing, consorting and cavorting with whomsoever he pleased, taunted those with whom he could have been an ally but he rebelled; and finally led Iraq into the morass of deception that would ultimately lead to his own demise and the fortunes of Iraq left to outsiders only interested in the oil.

Remembering that the United States was not alone in redressing the issues of an out-of-control Iraqi regime, one can only assume that Iraq did not become a democracy at the will of a fallen dictatorship, but at the vote of the people willing to give democracy a chance. Would it be better if Qadaffi were deposed by a coalition force intent on redressing the Libyan dictator's own deception and conspiracy to deal maliciously with the world as in Lockerbie? One would think that based on the seemingly collusive efforts of the United Kingdom, even the American Administrative Executive would have a hard time convincing the United Nations in any kind of action. Pride was Qadaffi's downfall.

But Egypt has no significant oil reserves. Libya does. Which then, should the United Nations consider intervention for….both; neither; or the next to fall? And if the United Nations were to vote to intervene; which nation would have the primary resources to accomplish a peaceful transition? Who would stand to benefit the most…whoever pays the highest for a barrel of oil?

So the question of change for the lack of oil is not only less than academic, it is painfully not rhetorical either. The only transcendence to be found in all of this comes not from how much oil can become the cause of the next world conflagration, but of the peripherally involved enmity against Israel by all parties concerned. Understand that in the context of the whole Middle East crisis, even in the flagging loss of interest in trying to gain Israeli land for 'Palestinian' interests, it will eventually come down to what posture any Islamic state, whether (sic) democratic or under the auspices of shari'a dictates, intends as a political statement of common Islamic control in spite of the oil interests any may or may not have. Whose pride will stand in the gap left by the dictators?

In the end, joining with Islam may be the collaborative necessity of evil in order for the world to keep the oil flowing for any country; and that for everyone who is watching, appears just over the next horizon.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".