Why did the US get involved with Saudi Arabia?

[Dimitri Molotov]

from what i understand, one of the reasons bin laden hates america is because he offered to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein in case of an invasion, but they turned him down because they wanted president bush's protection, so bin laden got mad because he thought only holy warriors should defend the holy land. the middle east wars are not my strong arguing points, i am against the war but for moral reasons, and i don't know much about the background itself. the only stuff i ever hear is the bullcrap in school about how we "entered the war to protect our freedom!"

1. why did the US protect Saudi Arabia? whats in it for them? is this where the oil comes into play? why did Saudi Arabia want the US instead of Bin Laden? were they just stronger?

2. Why did the US invade Iraq? i dont understand how 9/11 has anything to do with the invasion at all, because that is what i am always told was the reason we invaded. the way i see it, saddam and bin laden were enemies since bin laden offered to take up arms against sadam, so why invade iraq?

[Magón]

1. why did the US protect Saudi Arabia? whats in it for them? is this where the oil comes into play? why did Saudi Arabia want the US instead of Bin Laden? were they just stronger?

Because FDR went to the Saudi Royal Family, said that the US would protect them/keep them in power over Arabia, and in exchange, the Saudi kingdom would supply them with oil. (That's the short of it all.)


2. Why did the US invade Iraq? i dont understand how 9/11 has anything to do with the invasion at all, because that is what i am always told was the reason we invaded. the way i see it, saddam and bin laden were enemies since bin laden offered to take up arms against sadam, so why invade iraq?

Oil and Iran. One of the first place the US secured was the oil fields all around Iraq. Some also speculate, and it's not just leftists, but also liberals and other center oriented people, that say Iraq was also supposed to be a staging ground for Bush and Cheney to later invade Iran. Which is completely possibly in my eyes seeing as they were both two super right-wing whack jobs to begin with, before they became Prez and Vice Prez.

[Victus Mortuum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Fou ndation_of_ARAMCO

U.S.-Saudi Relations are based on the U.S.'s imperialism and most major corporation's desire for easy oil. This was and still is the fundamental dynamic that most U.S. policy bases itself on in the Middle East - just sometimes under different pretenses.

The U.S. government has almost always acted openly as the servant of corporations. Only in times of great economic crisis is something that is bothered to be even possibly considered an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

To understand our current relations with Iraq, you need to understand the history of our relations with both Iraq and Iran. Prior to 1979 the U.S. had strong relations with the Shah of Iran who strongly supported U.S. imperialism into Iran as well as pushing for other Middle Eastern states to do the same. This was great for U.S. corporations. This was not good for the people of Iran, as demonstrated by the Iranian Revolution (the same thing happened in Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion there - opposition to U.S. imperialism). The U.S. suddenly took interest in Iraq as a new potential hub of Middle-Eastern policy and over the course of the next several years significantly increased and improved relations there with the newly installed Saddam Hussein as well as aiding them significantly in the Iraq-Iran war despite acknowledging them as a state sponsor of terrorism.

After the war Iraq was bankrupt and owed large amounts to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They could not pay and were experiencing major economic issues. Saddam then invaded Kuwait in order to make it part of Iraq and expand his control and his countries oil interests and power. This became a problem to U.S. oil interests (and oil interests globally) hence the Gulf War.

After the war, the U.S. secretly pursued policies to overthrow Saddam because of his new anti-U.S. imperialism policy through the C.I.A. - attacking both government and civilian targets - through the mid-90s. This failed, and so this became official public U.S. policy toward Iraq in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act. 5 years later, we invaded Iraq.

That's a rough sketch of what happened.

[HEAD ICE]

It should be noted that America didn't invade Iraq for the oil, as in going into the country and pumping out the oil to get rich. Rather, securing a dominant source of energy in US hands has major strategic benefits on the world stage.

One of the major myths today is that the US government engages in lying. That is half true, the government lies repeatedly to their citizens. But on the other end the government can be almost too honest. Take a look at this document written by Paul Wolfowitz when he was undersecretary of defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

[Dimitri Molotov]

thank you everyone for the useful posts i now understand that part, but why exactly do bush and chaney want to invade iran? is it because of the nukes and an actual threat or is there more benefits?

[graymouser]

thank you everyone for the useful posts i now understand that part, but why exactly do bush and chaney want to invade iran? is it because of the nukes and an actual threat or is there more benefits?
1. Iran has plenty of oil in its own right.
2. Where Iran sits is a very important point in geopolitics, if the US wants to control both the Middle East and Central Asia, Iran's a great place to do it from.
3. An independent Iran can be a regional power and act to frustrate US ambitions in the area, as is seen with its influence over Hezbollah in Lebanon.
4. Since the Iranian Revolution was fiercely anti-American, it has been a point of imperial pride to overthrow the Iranian government. This is not always a determining factor but in certain cases such as Iran and Cuba, US hatred for the government is a factor that can drive policy beyond the rational points. (It's also a blow to the influence of any empire to lose a close dependent like Iran.) It also plays into certain broad ideological factors; regime change in Iran would mean the failure of the one success story of political Islam.

[Victus Mortuum]

Iran is largely anti-imperialist. They have a massive public sector that is centrally planned, including oil production. That's good enough reason to overthrow them for capitalists and their reps.

[S.Artesian]

Because FDR went to the Saudi Royal Family, said that the US would protect them/keep them in power over Arabia, and in exchange, the Saudi kingdom would supply them with oil. (That's the short of it all.)

Agree partially-- not that the Saudis would supply the US, but that the Saudis would allow the US companies unrestricted rights to exploration and development in return for royalties and aid. Profit was the motive, not supply as such.



Oil and Iran. One of the first place the US secured was the oil fields all around Iraq. Some also speculate, and it's not just leftists, but also liberals and other center oriented people, that say Iraq was also supposed to be a staging ground for Bush and Cheney to later invade Iran. Which is completely possibly in my eyes seeing as they were both two super right-wing whack jobs to begin with, before they became Prez and Vice Prez.

Disagree. Profit again is the motive, not supplies. The US may have secured the oil fields but did sod all in restoring the fields, improving the equipment, boosting production during its occupation of Iraq.

Now if you want to say the reason for the war was to jack the price of oil back up and keep it from falling below the $20 mark, I can agree with that.

Remember, after 1991, Iraq's production was limited at first, and then was allowed to increase until by 1998 production was close to 3 million barrels/day. This was the year that oil prices dropped below $11-$10 level, and Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolowitz started beating their drum for regime change in Iraq.

After rising 1999-2001, the price of oil dropped in 2002 due to the recession and Bush starts his adventure in accumulation through devastation.

[Jose Gracchus]

Iran is largely anti-imperialist. They have a massive public sector that is centrally planned, including oil production. That's good enough reason to overthrow them for capitalists and their reps.

What about Chilean copper? That's a nationalized industry. The problem is the economy and the ruling class are not integrated properly into the U.S. imperial domain, complete with patronage-dependence for the elite and integration into our institutions.

[Red Commissar]

Iran is largely anti-imperialist. They have a massive public sector that is centrally planned, including oil production. That's good enough reason to overthrow them for capitalists and their reps.

There's a great deal of interventionism and nationalized sectors but it's hardly "central planning". Iran functions more or less like any other state to be honest. Technically Saudi Arabia has a more "planned" economy in that government is nearly involved in every sector of the economy and the "private" sector is probably even smaller than what exists in Iran. Saudi Arabia Aramco is a state-owned firm too. However Saudi Arabia works with the United States, it doesn't impede its activities. In return an unpopular regime is propped up by giving it weapons and aid.

The US wouldn't care if Iran was exactly the same but playing ball with them. It's not so much a matter of their economic doctrines as it is the Iranian state trying to extend its influence in the Middle-East. Just look at what happened with Mossadeq- fellow hardly didn't want to make a centrally-planned economy- his mistake was trying to cut into Anglo-Iranian's operations by nationalizing the oil fields on his terms rather than Anglo-Iranian.

As for Saudi Arabia, the US sees it as an economic partner and a partner for its regional pursuits. In return for the royal family getting a cut of revenue, they let American and other foreign firms move in and do their thing. Saudi Arabia's government lets them do that as they will- another government might not be as willing to do so.

Consider that despite Saudi Arabia's oil wealth, not much of it even appears back in some form to the people. Outside of Riyadh, Mecca, and the various foreign worker cities (I don't mean the migrant workers from Egypt, South Asia, and the east, but families of those who are working with the oil companies), you pretty much see run down villages and poverty. This feeds anti-government sentiment, but the government keeps this at bay with its state repression and religious methods. Hell it has a similarity with Iran in that regard, but Iran doesn't seem to be AS socially dominating. AFAIK a woman in Iran would probably have more 'liberties' than one in Saudi Arabia but that isn't saying much.

So to summarize it, Saudi Arabia's government keeps its market open to the US and aids its foreign policy. In return US helps the government keep itself in power and allows the state (IE royal family and their supporters) to get a cut of the oil.

[Magón]

Disagree. Profit again is the motive, not supplies.

You do realize though, that to make themselves a decent profit, they were going to need a decent supply. Iraq was just that in the US Gov's eyes (and still is), since Kuwait was already under the US thumb, and supplying them quite well with what they had. It's one of the reasons we don't see the US as a military force in the Sudan, which does have oil according to geological surveys done in the past, and recently. The only problem, is it's not enough to supply the US, or the US Military in the long run (or what the US see's as the long run,) in the Sudan. Even the EU hasn't touched Sudanese oil spots.

[Tommy4ever]

1. Iran has plenty of oil in its own right.
2. Where Iran sits is a very important point in geopolitics, if the US wants to control both the Middle East and Central Asia, Iran's a great place to do it from.
3. An independent Iran can be a regional power and act to frustrate US ambitions in the area, as is seen with its influence over Hezbollah in Lebanon.
4. Since the Iranian Revolution was fiercely anti-American, it has been a point of imperial pride to overthrow the Iranian government. This is not always a determining factor but in certain cases such as Iran and Cuba, US hatred for the government is a factor that can drive policy beyond the rational points. (It's also a blow to the influence of any empire to lose a close dependent like Iran.) It also plays into certain broad ideological factors; regime change in Iran would mean the failure of the one success story of political Islam.

To be fair you have ommitted the fact that Iran directly threaten the USA's most important ally in the region, Israel, and generally uses frightening rhetoric.

Iran is also the flagship of radical Islamism - an ideology directly opposed to the US.

Aside from that those are the main reasons.

[S.Artesian]

You do realize though, that to make themselves a decent profit, they were going to need a decent supply. Iraq was just that in the US Gov's eyes (and still is), since Kuwait was already under the US thumb, and supplying them quite well with what they had. It's one of the reasons we don't see the US as a military force in the Sudan, which does have oil according to geological surveys done in the past, and recently. The only problem, is it's not enough to supply the US, or the US Military in the long run (or what the US see's as the long run,) in the Sudan. Even the EU hasn't touched Sudanese oil spots.

I wouldn't be so sure about why you don't see the US military in the Sudan. You're using the negative as proof.

As for "decent supply," that just doesn't wash when you look at what happened when the Iraqis took bids for exploration, development and production. US companies essentially sat on their hands.

For us to believe that the bourgeoisie-- Wolowitz or any other of those vicious clowns--knows why it really goes to war would mean that we believe that the bourgeoisie actually understands the commodity, its dual, an duel, existence as both an useful article and a value.

So it can say it's going to war to control the world's supply of oil, or protect a chokepoint or blahblahblah, but it's going to war to do one thing above all else-- make money.

Oil companies have only a peripheral interest in making oil. They're interested in making money.

[Magón]

I wouldn't be so sure about why you don't see the US military in the Sudan. You're using the negative as proof.

I would say the US Military not being in the Sudan, sucking up the oil, is rather a good thing, than a negative thing.


As for "decent supply," that just doesn't wash when you look at what happened when the Iraqis took bids for exploration, development and production. US companies essentially sat on their hands.

Yeah, but who could see that the US and their new designs for aircraft, etc. are very oil consumptive, and what's better than to go under there under false pretenses, knock off a dictator, and look for WMDs, while in front of everyone else, suck out the oil that was being bid for?


For us to believe that the bourgeoisie-- Wolowitz or any other of those vicious clowns--knows why it really goes to war would mean that we believe that the bourgeoisie actually understands the commodity, its dual, an duel, existence as both an useful article and a value.

But see, you're thinking there going to war under one pretext, which is to make money. Which is just one of the reasons why they would go to Iraq. I've explained already, the other reasons why people like Wolowitz, etc. would want to go into Iraq.


So it can say it's going to war to control the world's supply of oil, or protect a chokepoint or blahblahblah, but it's going to war to do one thing above all else-- make money.

Oil companies have only a peripheral interest in making oil. They're interested in making money.

I agree, but Iraq is also more than just that, because like I said before, it was (probably) meant to be one of the staging grounds to invade Iran through if the US hadn't gotten bogged down in Iraq like they did, and same with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was supposed to be the other, since Afghanistan borders Iran too, and they could attack in a two pronged attack.

[Triple A]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Oct05/041005oil.pump.jpg
and
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/mexico-drug-money2.jpg





Perfect marriage between countries:thumbup1:.

[Queercommie Girl]

While Islamic Iran is a good counterweight against US imperialism, we mustn't actually think it's a real ally to genuine socialism either. (Though I think Iran is probably the best "theocracy" out there)

The basic principal position of every genuine socialist should be "neither US imperialism nor Iranian Islamism", but obviously in practice we have to be strategically flexible on the ground.

Personally I think compared with an US-backed revolution, the Iranian regime is the "lesser of the two evils". (Like in the US itself Obama is the "lesser of the two evils") But genuine socialists must seek to develop independent working class forces there as well.

[Queercommie Girl]

from what i understand, one of the reasons bin laden hates america is because he offered to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein in case of an invasion, but they turned him down because they wanted president bush's protection, so bin laden got mad because he thought only holy warriors should defend the holy land. the middle east wars are not my strong arguing points, i am against the war but for moral reasons, and i don't know much about the background itself. the only stuff i ever hear is the bullcrap in school about how we "entered the war to protect our freedom!"

1. why did the US protect Saudi Arabia? whats in it for them? is this where the oil comes into play? why did Saudi Arabia want the US instead of Bin Laden? were they just stronger?

2. Why did the US invade Iraq? i dont understand how 9/11 has anything to do with the invasion at all, because that is what i am always told was the reason we invaded. the way i see it, saddam and bin laden were enemies since bin laden offered to take up arms against sadam, so why invade iraq?

The fact that the United States, itself founded on the principles of secularism, would actually be on the side of a right-wing semi-feudal theocracy like Saudi Arabia against the secular Saddam Hussein, shows the great hypocrisy of the US capitalist ruling class.

Capitalists have no moral or philosophical principles. It's all about money and oil, not about the interests of furthering the cause of secularist rationalist civilisation.