European Tribune

Display:
It was more for the here and now stability of the Gulf and for Israel.  Saddam was problematic for all parties, so he had to go.  Cheney and the boys like endgame strategies; they are not much for uncertainty. It was supposed to send a message about American power as well. No doubt it was deemed a win-win situation with little downside.  They took pressure off the Gulf states and Israel.  They could create a laissez-faire utopia to prove their ideology.  They could now focus attention on the other "contained" state in the region- Iran and they set themselves up in a forward position for the future. They can protect the resources and keep them flowing West and they can get in on lucrative oil deals as supply and demand head in opposite directions.
by bellumregio on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Had it gone the way they planned, the Iraq Oil Law would long since be in place with juicy contracts all round.

Forget "containment" of Iran: they were offered back in 2003 by the panic stricken regime far more than is on offer now, but they were planning to be in Teheran within the year...

From hubris to nemesis...

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series