Yemen, Energy Crisis, & the Nigerian Crotch Bomber: The Privatization of Security & the Militarization of Society-Part II

Yemen and the Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian Plan

Spectre of Serial War

Security agencies are now focusing their sights on a whole set of countries deemed to be at-risk. According to a leaked confidential memo, people from these countries will be profiled and targeted for “additional screening” at airports. In the words of one US commentator for the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“... most frightening to me was that while the leaked document deemed that holders of passports from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and Algeria should be subjected to additional screening, no such special attention was given to holders of passports from Saudi Arabia - the home of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers. And now it’s worth noting that the list doesn't include Pakistan or Nigeria - Umar Farouk’s home – either.”

The decision to widen the “screening” of travellers to encompass this vast array of countries deemed to be countries of particular threat to the West fits well within the original logic of the pre-9/11 geostrategy that has now become the ‘War on Terror’.

Hints of this geostrategy surfaced from disparate sources, such as former NATO Commander General Wesley Clarke, who wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars:

As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.

Clarke didn’t mention Yemen. But Yemen was explicitly mentioned in an address by the infamous Richard Perle - then Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense policy Board and former Assistant Secretary of Defence in the Reagan administration - in the same month, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Washington DC:

Those who think Iraq should not be next may want to think about Syria or Iran or Sudan or Yemen or Somalia or North Korea or Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority.”

Obama’s Neocons: Kissinger and Brzezinski

BzrezinskiThe escalation of US military activity in Yemen, therefore, is by no means simply a response to events of recent years, but merely the continuing extension of a wider bipartisan geostrategy that was formulated not only by people largely associated with Republican neocons, but also by arch-Democrats, such as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former National Security Adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski. During the 1970s Middle East oil crisis, Kissinger secretly advocated that the US military might have to intervene to directly and permanently occupy the oil-producing Gulf States to prevent future volatility in US energy security. Four years before 9/11, in his study published by the Council on Foreign Relations, Brzezinski outlined in unnerving detail the contours of what the Bush, and now the Obama, administration, have pursued in the context of the ‘War on Terror’: a plan to dominate “Eurasia” - the landmass comprising the continents of Europe and Asia, at the juncture of which lies the Middle East:

“... how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical... A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above...”

KissingerDemocratic neocons Kissinger and Brzezinski continue to play a key role in Obama’s foreign and security policies, particularly in... (drum roll)... Eurasia! (Eureka? – no, way too easy) In December 2008 before Obama’s foreign policy team was even fully formed, the incoming President dispatched  Kissinger to Moscow to meet Putin and president Medvedev. Kissinger re-visited Russia in March 2009,  this time joined by a whole cohort of former senior US administration officials, just two weeks before the Medvedev-Obama summit in London. Although the White House insisted this was a purely private affair, it was obvious that his visit was part of normal ‘Track Two’ diplomacy. Brzezinski is also playing a behind-the-scenes advisory role to Obama, on Russia and NATO, as well as on issues in the Middle East including Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Just how key their role is, is a matter for debate. While Brzezinski has acted as Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor, Kissinger purportedly has no ‘official’ position. Or has he? “As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States,” declared Obama’s National Security Advisor General Jim Jones at the 45th Munich Conference, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal [sic] Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”

Say what??

I think my role today is a little bit different than you might expect”, he added.

No kidding.


US and UK governments are also exploring the prospect of profiling passengers on the basis of race, age and gender. While that is not to endorse profiling of any kind as a meaningful and viable security procedure, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s observation is worth noting – if profiling is going ahead, why is it avoiding US client states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, among others?

Curiously enough, Wesley Clarke put the case very well seven years ago:

And what about the real sources of terrorists - U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together?

It is more complicated than Clarke makes out, but he makes a valid point. Why are known state-sponsors of Islamist terrorism being ignored? The question, of course, brings up the wider issue – what exactly is Yemen’s relation to the pre-9/11 bipartisan geostrategy that is currently playing out at the hands of the Obama administration?

Militarization of Geopolitical Energy Choke-Points

A glimpse of the answer to this question actually arrived one day before the foiled attack from Associated Press:

“The Pentagon recently confirmed it has poured nearly $70 million in military aid into Yemen this year–compared with none in 2008. The U.S. military has boosted its counterterrorism training for Yemeni forces and is providing more intelligence, according to U.S. officials and analysts. The result appears to be a sharp escalation in Yemen’s campaign against al-Qaida, which previously amounted to scattered raids against militants, mixed with tolerance of some fighters who made vague promises they would avoid terrorist activity....

“Yemen's government, which has little control outside the capital, has been distracted by other internal problems. It is fighting a fierce war against Shiite rebels who rose up near the Saudi border, and Saudi forces have gotten involved, battling rebels who have crossed into its territory. The government is also struggling with a secessionist movement in the once-independent south and trying to deal with rampant poverty...

“The central government's lack of control of areas outside Yemen's capital - places where many angry tribes are willing to take in al-Qaeda militants - have raised U.S. fears that the beleaguered nation could collapse into chaos. Yemen not only lies next to Saudi Arabia and near the oil-rich nations of the Persian Gulf, it overlooks vital sea routes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.”

YemenCouple of key points become obvious from this. The last year, 2009, has seen a sudden massive, unprecedented escalation in US military intelligence activity in Yemen. The Abdulmutallab incident has only intensified and legitimized this activity. The US and Britain are moving to operate a joint “counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen along with more support for the Yemeni coastguard”, while also “pushing for more UN intervention to tackle the emerging terrorist threat in Somalia.” So there is a question of chronology - why now? Then the geopolitics - the US-UK presence in Yemen puts their military forces right on the cusp of the Horn of Africa, poised for intensified force projection in Africa, with a focus on fighting off Somali piracy. The region between Yemen and Somalia is where we find the Bab el-Mandab, the closure of which according to the US Energy Information Administration:

“... could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal/Sumed pipeline complex, diverting them around the southern tip of Africa. The Strait of Bab el-Mandab is a chokepoint between the horn of Africa and the Middle East, and a strategic link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean. It is located between Yemen, Djibouti, and Eritrea, and connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Exports from the Persian Gulf must pass through Bab el-Mandab before entering the Suez Canal. In 2006, an estimated 3.3 million bbl/d flowed through this waterway toward Europe, the United States, and Asia. The majority of traffic, around 2.1 million bbl/d, flows northbound through the Bab el-Mandab to the Suez/Sumed complex.”

Energy Crisis - US Corporate Loss

ExxonThere are various problems. Yemeni oil production has peaked, declining from 450,000 barrels per day in 2003 to 280,000 in early 2009. This has led to drastic decline in Yemen’s oil exports by around half – expected to decline to zero in about 10 years. During this period, the Yemen government has attempted increasingly to gain control over domestic oil production projects. As of 2005, a dispute broke out between two major US oil companies, Hunt Oil and ExxonMobil, and the Yemen government, over production of “Block 18”. “Natural gas reserves from Marib Block 18 and other fields located in the vicinity have been dedicated to the project, which will require approximately 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day to produce 6.7 million tonnes of LNG per annum”, reads Hunt Oil’s website on its Yemen projects. The existing gas production facilities in Marib Block 18 currently have a capacity of 3.2 billion cubic feet per day... The LNG will be shipped to markets in the U.S. and Korea.”

Through the Yemen Exploration and Production Company (YEPC), Hunt and Exxon have produced oil in Block 18 for 20 years since 1982. They say that this period was extended for five years in an agreement signed by the Yemen government and YEPC in January 2004, and beginning in November 2005. But Yemen would have none of it, reports Gulf Oil & Gas:

“Since November 15, 2005, the Government of Yemen has taken numerous actions to prevent YEPC from exercising its duties as operator of Block 18 in breach of the various legally executed and binding agreements signed in 2004. This is without precedent in Yemen. Further, Yemen has attempted to replace YEPC in the Marib Block with a government-owned company, Safer Exploration and Production Operations Company (‘SEPOC’)”

Hunt and Exxon responded by filing for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. The outcome of this was announced in late November 2008 - and it didn’t look good for Big Oil. “... the outcome has ensured that the Yemeni state retains earnings from a disputed production block from 2005 to date”, reported Arabian Oil & Gas, “a ruling worth billions of dollars to the oil-revenue dependent state.” Clearly, Yemen’s insistence on maximising its control over gas revenues is partly a response to its rapidly plummeting revenues from oil exports.

The following year, 2009, saw an escalating deterioration of conditions inside Yemen, with intensifying and proliferating clashes between Yemeni security forces, al-Qaeda insurgents and Shi’ite rebels. Thus Yemen’s own oil and gas energy resources, its geostrategic position in relation to Gulf energy and North African energy supplies, and its escalating domestic energy crisis, have played a critical role in the deepening of US military involvement in Yemen under Obama from early 2009 - now escalating in the aftermath of the crotch-bombing incident.

 # # # #

AhmedDr. Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author and political analyst. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and has taught courses in contemporary history and international relations theory at the University of Sussex. His Doctoral thesis investigated the radicalization processes and dynamics of violent conflict in the context of hierarchical social systems in the modern world. Dr. Ahmed has also published extensively on international security issues, including The London Bombings; The War on Truth; Behind the War on Terror; and The War on Freedom. He has been an expert commentator for BBC News 24, BBC World Today, Al-Jazeera English, among others. He is currently advising the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on engaging British Muslim communities. Visit Dr. Nafeez’ website.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. JamesLaffrey says:

    Thank you, Mr. Nafeez Ahmed.

    If I may…
    More simply:

    The U.S. instigates unrest and “terror” in important oil/gas-related countries. And then the U.S. uses that “terror” as an excuse to seize control of the target countries by murdering as many citizens of those countries as necessary. Acts of “terror” both real and manufactured are enabled by the U.S. in the U.S. in order to keep the U.S. public cowering. Yemen is the latest but not the last.

    But please notice that the U.S. doesn’t do that in important oil-gas-related countries that have the means to make the U.S. pay for such horrendous criminal behavior. The U.S. doesn’t do it to Russia, for example. No Predator drones are headed for Russia. The U.S. is the worst international criminal bully since Hitler and Japan in WW2.

    Why? Well, one answer is this: Our leaders, our supposed capitalist free-marketist leaders (overt and Deep State), refuse to pay the market price for energy resources from the countries that own those resources. Nope, the U.S. has to own those resources. The U.S. has to steal those resources by force, by murder, my mass murder.

    Oh, but We The People are paying. We ARE paying. We are paying dearly — with so many lives. and with a trashed economy. with trashed liberties. with a trashed Constitution.

  2. JamesLaffrey says:

    typo alert: In my comment above, it should be “by force, by murder, BY mass murder.” (As of this writing, my mass has yet to be murdered :-D)

  3. theepitbull says:

    Another E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T. Article 🙂


    This just in: FYI

    In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.


  4. Kingfisher says:

    “Thus Yemen’s own oil and gas energy resources, its geostrategic position in relation to Gulf energy and North African energy supplies, and its escalating domestic energy crisis, have played a critical role in the deepening of US military involvement in Yemen under Obama from early 2009 – now escalating in the aftermath of the crotch-bombing incident.”
    The geostrategy part is obvious, but what does its own oil and gas energy resources and domestic energy crisis have to do with deepening of US military involvement?
    As you note, its oil production is in decline and its exports are fairly insignificant (below 500k bpd). Its gas reserves ample, but there are 30 other countries with higher reserves, even including Trinidad and Tobago has higher reserves.

  5. Kingfisher says:

    “If I may…
    More simply:”

    No, please don’t. This stuff does not simplify well; and your simplification is childish hyperbole to support your biases and agenda.

    “The U.S. is the worst international criminal bully since Hitler and Japan in WW2.”
    You cannot be serious. The body count racked up under the banner of communism would make even Hitler blush.

    “Nope, the U.S. has to own those resources. The U.S. has to steal those resources by force, by murder, my mass murder.”
    If only that were the case! Gas is still over $2.50 a gallon in the states. I am still waiting to see some of the dividends from all this pillaging we do.

  6. @KingFisher: Oh yes, we are all over the map, in all important strategic locations and resource-rich region, killing, bombing-Droning, installing regimes, taking out regimes, kidnapping, torturing, murdering…all for real altrusitic reasons; aaaahhh that’s right. We are the good guys with really really good intentions trying to stop really really bad guys: communists, socialists, Leninists, Islamists, Jihadists, extremists, terrorists…Why are we being so misunderstood?!!! Why do they hate us?!!! iT’s only early afternoon, wayyyyyy too early for Puff the magic Dragon effect!!

    @Theepitbull: I agree; excellent, indeed. As a side note: you deserve much better sources than Raw Story- They copy-paste MSM garbage with revised title and a bit cosmeric add ups, and they happen to be marketing and selling partisan pills-Democratic HQ. That’s my two cents, and those I know with good sense for good/solid/real sources. It’s ok to visit now and then if you’re in that kinda entertainment thing, but don’t let it become your source for info…

  7. 344thBrother says:

    Great article as usual 😀

    Looking for confirmation here.
    True or false: Obama got his first job fresh out of school under Henry Kissinger?

    True or false, would that surprise anyone?

    peace on earth
    Dave Short (Thought criminal)

  8. Kingfisher says:

    “…all for real altrusitic reasons; aaaahhh that’s right. We are the good guys with really really good intentions trying to stop really really bad guys:”
    I didn’t say we were, Sibel.

    My initial post questioned Dr. Ahmed’s assertion that Yemen’s oil and gas resources and domestic energy crisis are related to the deepening of US military involvement.

  9. 344thBrother says:

    As reported today by Paul Joseph Watson, Obama’s new Information Czar is openly supporting Cointelpro activities. Here’s his paper on it.

    SSRN-Conspiracy Theories by Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule

    peace freedom truth justice
    Dave Short (Thought Criminal) Just ask Cass

  10. @344th Brother: Okay, so is it true? Please let us know, and provide us with link/sources. We reall want to know:-)As for ‘would that surprise anyone?’: Are you kidding; of course not. Have you read my ‘Two Sides of the Sme Coin’? It will go back establishing: deep state-Shadow Government & one establishment point we’ve been discussing here…Good to have you here.

    @KingFisher: You and I have agreed to disagree on some issues. And, yes, your initial/first comment is a good point, good question that should be expanded upon & explained further. As I’ve said before: I’d hate to see this place becoming another echo chamber of uniformed thoughts/view points…so I happen to like the idea of having you and others question certain angles, disagree, and provide alternative view points. I also appreciate your civil manners in expressing all that…Anyway, sometimes you (really) get under my skin, but please don’t let that stop you:-)

  11. 344thBrother says:

    Here are a few relevant quotes from the esteemed Mr. Sunstein:

    “Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined.”

    “What causes such theories to arise and spread? Are they important and perhaps even threatening, or merely trivial and even amusing? What can and should government do about them? We aim here to sketch some psychological and social mechanisms that produce, sustain, and spread these theories; to show that some of them are quite important and should be taken seriously; and to offer suggestions for governmental responses, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of law.”

    “direct government rebuttals of the reigning
    conspiracy theory will prove ineffective; government will instead do best by using various tactics of cognitive infiltration to break up the polarized information cluster from within.”

    “II. Governmental Responses
    What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
    what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
    (1)Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
    parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).”

    “In Section C, we examine the role of law and judges in fashioning the
    government’s response. We will ask whether judges do more good than harm by invoking statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act to force government to disclose facts that would rebut conspiracy theories. Our conclusions are generally skeptical: there is little reason to believe that judges can improve on administrative choices in these situations.”

    Sounds like a proposal for the end of free speech to me. Is speech still free if they tax it? 😛 Oh wait, that’s a conspiracy theory.

    In the interests of brevity, I’ll end it here. There’s lots more.

    peace freedom truth justice.
    Dave Short (Taxable thought criminal)

  12. Hi all

    I’d like to respond to the very important question about Yemen’s domestic oil and gas crisis, and what on earth this would have to do with US military intervention, given the level of depletion of Yemeni resources.

    Firstly, the issue needs to be understood in its wider geostrategic context. I’ve suggested here, and argued in more detail elsewhere, that the ‘War on Terror’ needs to be understood as a strategic US elite response to the decline of US hegemony through the post-Cold War period, a decline compounded and accelerated in the context of converging global energy, ecological and economic crises. I can’t prove this claim here and now, but suffice to say that there’s a greal deal of evidence that the Bush administration was particularly concerned by the danger of a global oil supply crunch early in the twenty-first century. This has played an instrumental role in the development of the ‘War on Terror’ as a long-term strategy to (try to) dominate not only the entirety of the world’s oil and gas resources, but also all possible transhipment routes. This is not all the ‘War on Terror’ is about, but it is central. Part of the rationale is to quote Anthony Cordesman from the CSIS, “oil is power” – whoever dominates the energy reserves and transhipments routes dominates a world dependent on them. This provides a lever by which to continue to dominate the world economy as well as to dominate key US rivals, such as China, Russia, Western Europe, India, etc.

    As I’ve emphasised Iraq, Afghanistan were only stages in a broader conception. Yemen and Somalia were also part of this strategy. The issue of declining energy resources may explain the chronology, in terms of, why now? Yemen is not the only country to have peaked in oil production. Saudi Arabia, for all intents and purposes, has done so. So has Iran. So has Venuezuela – i’m just plucking some examples out here. there are dozens of other major fields in decline.

    The coming oil crunch is going to hit us hard. My sense is that US policy-planners see a necessity to gain control of as many extant and potential sources of hydrocarbon energy as possible – this sense is backed up by evidence such as the energy security report commissioned by Dick Cheney and published by the CFR and James Baker IPP three months before 9/11, which advocated a general need for military intervention in the Middle East (particularly in Iraq) to stave off an oil supply crunch. This includes ensuring the stability of the Yemeni supply, no matter how seemingly insignificant – any quantity of oil is hugely significant in the context of the impact of the impending peak of world oil production; and Yemen still has sufficient gas reserves to serve US markets amply for just under the next decade – from a short-term perspective, keeping such energy sources online is essential to ensure the overall flow of resources as well as to stabilise world prices, which has become particularly important after the devastating impact of the global financial crisis.

    My sense is also that the US administration is concerned by the generic destabilizing impact of a coming oil supply crunch in terms of its relations with major rivals. The Yemen intervention also provides a deeper military penetration of the Persian Gulf and North Africa. Yemen’s own internal energy crises provides a trigger for the urgency of doing so, illustrating the potential for the region to spiral wildly out of control. It is critical, within the current ideological framework of policymaking in ‘international affairs’, to maintain the system against these odds, based on the unquestionable principle of US primacy/pre-eminence which cannot be allowed to decline. That means that the framework of social, political and economic order in Yemen – defined as “stability” despite its inherently self-imploding dynamic – must be sustained. This is all part and parcel of maintaining the “regional framework of order” in the Gulf, which the US itself had worked to established, and formalised in the 1970s with the Nixon-Kissinger doctrine. There you go, the Dark Lord surfaces yet again!

    The urgency of sustaining the “stability” of this order, by propping up the Yemeni regime, is precisely to stave off an internal social crisis and collapse in the context of massive converging energy, economic, food and water crises that threaten to provoke popular uprisings, in turn threatening the collapse of a trusty regional client-state that could also have a spiralling regional impact in the Persian Gulf.

  13. camusrebel says:

    So it seems clear the crotch bomber was tasked with his nefarious mission to among other things($$$ 4 body scanners, general stoking the ‘ol fear fire) justify an escalation in Yemen. But Nafeez, I’m a little suprised you use the phony Al-CIA-duh boogey man talking point. A lot of dirt poor Yemenis are pissed off about becoming even poorer than dirt. Some want to blow shit up, kill government officials, etc. Let the Kissingers of the world describe them with a non existant Orwellian/Pavlonian buzz word. Your masterpiece, “War On Truth” made it crystal clear to me how very fake that all is.

    344…I too was alarmed at the brazen openness Sunstein declared war on the truth and free speech with. Another weasle zionista desperately trying to keep the wolves from his masters door.

    Sibel, have you heard about, plan to write about the Council of Governors BO announced recently to exactly zero press coverage?

  14. camusrebel says:

    Nafeez…you slipped that in as I was typing my last comment. Please disregard my wondering. But can we be very clear here?

    Do you believe there are “Al-queada” terrorists in Yemen(or anywhere) not under the auspices of CIA/Mossad.

    And for the record, would it be mistaken to say you are certain that 911 was an inside job.

    Thanks for your amazing research, writings, fearless clear thinking and hard work.

  15. JamesLaffrey says:

    It’s funny.

    On this website, the anonymous “Kingfisher” is treated like He Who Must Be Replied To. His (or her) behavior is obvious to me. I don’t reply to him. (See above: I didn’t take his bait.)

    But worth comment is the fact that Sibel seems always to reply to him but often not to significant others, and now Nafeez Ahmed has replied at length here to “the very important question” by Kingfisher.

  16. @KingFisher

    Amazing that you sit here and read and comment on this blog and you still want to keep pushing your biases and agenda.

    You might be a bit right on not oversimplifying this stuff but what Sibel is saying is true; horribly so. Just ask any Iranian, Venezuelan, Chilean, Brazilian, etc. etc.



  17. Thanks Dr Nafeez.

    Nice to hear a different perspective on things. Your post gives me the southern strategy to Pepe Escobar’s Central Asian chronicling of the “Great Game”. By the way, the motivations you impute to the US elite is spot on; I’ve read a lot of analysis on them from ex-intel folks speaking out against their genocidal ways to know that such statements ring true.

  18. @ Nafeez:Thank you for this nicely articulated clarification, especially doing it so late (your time; past midnight).

    @Zaknick: We just finished interviewing Chris Hedges. I think you’ll like him a lot…

    @JamesLaffrey: Now, this sounds like sibling rivalry! I read every single comment, and you know, after a while, it gets pretty redundant and boring to hear/read me saying/writing: great comment, interesting point, etc. With our Mr. KF, as I indicated above, things gets a bit under my skin, so I go on the record with that (having it under my skin;-); exercising/polishing my tolerance and patience! Maybe you try to exercise a bit maturity, and don’t make this to be a sign of favoritism. Or, try to really get under my skin, and draw a fiery-biting response;-)

    @Camusrebel:’Council of Governors BO’- Now I feel ignorant, and that’s not because I rely on MSM! I have to look into that, and find out what this is about…Thank you.

  19. And what about the Fruit of the Boom terrorist’s alleged handler? The sharply dressed Indian man who talked an airline manager into letting him on the flight without a passport? Where are the security pictures?

  20. 344thBrother says:

    @Sibel on Obama’s first job:

    Thank you for your reply and for putting me on a spot that I now seem unable to get out of. : )

    With regrets, after an afternoon of fruitless combing the web, I am able to neither confirm nor deny that Obama’s first job was with Kissinger Associates. The only direct reference that I can find to it was from Alex Jone’s documentary “Obama Deception”, and the bibliography provided for that documentary omits any attribution for that claim. DRAT!

    I will continue to cast around for crumbs linking Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kissinger and related power brokers, but it looks very shadowy at this point, as it seems most of Obama’s history is. I’m not hopeful. I’m open to any leads anyone wishes to provide on the subject.

    Regarding your comment: “As for ‘would that surprise anyone?’: Are you kidding, of course not. ” Yeah I was kidding : ).

    @zaknick in a manner of speaking, yeah.

    Peace on earth,
    God bless us every one
    especially children and thought criminals
    Dave Short

  21. Kingfisher says:

    “The coming oil crunch is going to hit us hard. My sense is that US policy-planners see a necessity to gain control of as many extant and potential sources of hydrocarbon energy as possible……This includes ensuring the stability of the Yemeni supply, no matter how seemingly insignificant – any quantity of oil is hugely significant in the context of the impact of the impending peak of world oil production; and Yemen still has sufficient gas reserves to serve US markets amply for just under the next decade – from a short-term perspective, keeping such energy sources online is essential to ensure the overall flow of resources as well as to stabilise world prices…”

    Dr. Ahmed,

    All due respect but Henry Okah and MEND have been able to derail more daily oil production in the Niger delta, than Yemen produces and exports daily. By this logic the 82nd Airborne should be camped out in Port Harcourt right now.

    I think your stretching by extending the peak oil meme to Yemen. The only reason Yemen is of any significance is because of its geography.

    I take it you have a book on energy and geopolitics in the works? If I may ask, what primary research have you done, or hope to do for it? As far as secondary reading, I recommend you check out James R. Norman’s The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century if you have not already.


  22. Kingfisher says:

    “But worth comment is the fact that Sibel seems always to reply to him but often not to significant others, and now Nafeez Ahmed has replied at length here to “the very important question” by Kingfisher.”
    I asked a question to him regarding his article, nobody else did so. So umm…..that’s probably why he replied at length to me.

  23. Great article, I’m glad to read about Yemen, because I know nothing about the country, and the “underwear bomber” and his apparent “terrorist connections” to Yemen seemed to coincide with this US military attention towards Yemen. Another amazing coincidence in the history of the “war on terror!” I like this video where Michael Ruppert (who would probably agree with Dr. Ahmed’s global peak oil production “hitting us hard” point) says “if you want to get really, really, really angry–read Zibegnew Brzezenski’s The Grand Chessboard” and then reads excerpts like “second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above” in a really good Nazi Dr. Strangelove accent: . His longer lecture is here:

  24. camusrebel says:

    “Council of Governors” that BO(barack obama) announced last week is another assault on the quaint, decimated notion of Posse Comitatus, keeping the military out of domestic action.

    One more, blatant step down the road to full blown police state.

  25. You can hide the American led invasion of various Muslim countries behind the oil screen, but stealing oil and NG under the guise of fighting terrorism is only one of the reasons we’ve declared war on Islam.

    Another is to keep Apartheid Israel a racist, bigoted state of madness for Jews and another is to keep that Afghan opium flowing and making Wall Street banks rich financing the trade and laundering the profits.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

    Now that Zbigniew Brzezinski once again has the ear of a US president it is _very_ important to understand the character of the man. Is he honest? Is he truthful? Is he sane? Or is he none of the above?

    By the strange hand of fate, Peter Dale Scott has reason to know Brzezinski’s character (or lack thereof) intimately. Once a right-wing-eastern-European-nutcase-conspirator, always a right-wing-eastern-European-nutcase-conspirator. Peter Dale Scott knew Zbigniew Brzezinski when the latter was an undergraduate student and Scott was the college Dean, in Montreal, Canada, who had to undo Brzezinski’s attempt to hijack a college society — a left wing society, naturally. But listen for yourself. –

    PDS – 9. 1. 1. Truth conference, Montreal. Or from PDS’s website, at about minute 3:00 (no time counter on video, so 12% to 15% in by eyeball …). –

    The Neocons, ‘Bonkers’ Brezinski and Sir Halford Mackinder’s ‘World Island’ theory of world control. Sir Halford Mackinder in 1919: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.” You don’t have to believe the theory. You just have to believe that ‘Bonkers’ is bonkers enough to believe it. How bonkers is ‘Bonkers’? How mad are the Neocons? Very and very very.

    The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War, by Prof. Peter Dale Scott. –

Speak Your Mind