Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Resign? Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?

Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Resign? Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?

By Washington's Blog

The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation

While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.

Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.

But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.

Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Real Story At Benghazi

This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens and the sudden resignation of CIA boss David Petraeus.

The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission.

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

***

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was  because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

Why Did CIA Chief David Petraeus Suddenly Resign?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair.  This could be the real explanation, given that affairs of high-level intelligence chiefs could compromise national security.

But the timing of Petraeus’ resignation becomes more interesting once one learns that that he was scheduled to testify under oath next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate.

Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.

The Big Picture

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.

For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.

The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country.

Americans should ask ourselves if that’s what we want …

THE ROVING EYE - Time is tight to produce a worthy US dream By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE 

Time is tight to produce a worthy US dream 

By Pepe Escobar 

LOS ANGELES - It's tight. It's awfully tight. But way beyond demented pollmania permeating every nook and cranny of the multibillionaire election circus - coupled with the torrential vomiting of the Spin Machine scary monsters and super freaks - these are the stark facts. 

To become the next president of the United States (POTUS), Mitt Romney's got to win Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Arizona.

As it stands, hours before the foreign policy debate this Monday in Boca Raton, Florida, Barack Obama maintains a slight lead, 3 to 2 (Ohio, Colorado and Arizona versus Virginia and Florida where, until recently, he was also leading; now, according to Nate Silver's projections, Romney's chance of winning Florida are at 66%). 

Still, Obama is relatively comfy on top in Iowa (66%), New Hampshire (63%), Nevada (73%), Pennsylvania (89%) and Wisconsin (80%). 

The Obama slide had been relentless, non-stop, ever since the first debate; it was only barely reversed for the past three days. Even so, Romney must win all these swing states if he can't swing Ohio, which is leaning towards Obama by 70%. 

Mitt "Binders Full of Women" will come out all (Libyan) guns blazing at the last debate because he cannot afford to lose anywhere. Ultimately, if he doesn't swing those undecided Ohio ladies, the fat lady herself will sing. 

Sing what? It could be anything from The Star Spangled Banner - the Jimi Hendrix version - to We Shall Overcome. Well, here in California, it's more like Booker T and the MG's Time Is Tight. That's the Roving Eyemobile's official theme song - as our made in Detroit noir car, a grey Mustang (supporting US jobs) crisscrosses Southern California in search of what's left of the American dream. 

LA noir

Los Angeles, LA, Hollywood, whatever you wanna call it, this is a town that lies for a living - not a bad metaphor of both the US government and Mitt "Binders Full of Women". Come up with the appropriate soundstage, set design and a few catchy lines - plot is just a detail - and Hollywood will lie till it dies, or rather till it survives endless tequila sunrise shots. 

The LA Weekly is running a tournament to elect the best LA novel ever, which has to be a noir masterpiece. (See here.) 

The Roving Eye - a former Hollywood resident and perennial literature fanatic - takes no sides; I would vote for anything from Thomas Pynchon's psychedelic Inherent Vice to Raymond Chandler's black as hell The Big Sleep, passing through Scott Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon and anything by James Ellroy, especially The Black Dahlia. 

Of course, there's always the possibility of interpreting Obama vs Mitt as a noirish saga of love lost, betrayal and crime (financial, military, imperial and otherwise). Leave that to a disaster movie screenplay-to-be. 

Back to reality. To paraphrase the late great Ginsberg, I have seen the best and worst minds of past generations starving, silent, practically naked - or even respectably clothed - plowing LA's mean streets at night looking not for an angry fix, but for a soup kitchen. 

To check out on the bottom end of the 47%, I just had to drive by night to downtown LA, further down Los Angeles street, and then follow the dark clouds coming down all across the Los Angeles river. 

That did not prevent me from finding a decently attired 55-year-old Air Force veteran begging near UCLA in upscale Brentwood. I gave him some help, asked "Why?" and he answered, "Check with the US government". The gleaming outposts of the industrial-military complex - from Boeing to Lockheed Martin - are not that far away, around LAX. 

In the world according to Mitt Romney, this Air Force vet doesn't pay enough taxes, is a victim, and doesn't take personal responsibility for his life. By the way, in Mittworld the vet is joined by US soldiers in combat, firefighters, steelworkers, security guards, police officers and, yes, high school teachers - who draw an average wage of US$54,000, usually their only source of income to support a family of four or five. 

I also followed the surf trail from Laguna Beach to Dana Point and San Clemente - where small enterprises still deliver sweatshop-free, first class made-in-the-USA manufactured products, which threw me back to my teenage years when every hip kid wanted a Hobie cat, a Gordon & Smith skateboard and a Dewey Weber surfboard. 

When I went for a couple of sweatshirts I bought American - James Perse, a new, chic, LA clothing company successfully competing with delocalized corporate behemoths. It's quite a shock to see that label Made in USA instead of - well, it's inevitable - Made in China. 

LA, of course, is as much in Asia as in America. My dry cleaner is Cantonese; my local bakery in Brentwood is Korean; my Thai curry fix is still there in Thai town. But I was particularly keen on meeting Asia's 1/10th of the 1%, for whom California remains The Promised Land, essentially thanks to Silicon Valley and Hollywood. 

And then I found him, Mr 1% China, on Rodeo Drive, gleefully photographing a spectacular black-and-yellow Bugatti Veyron 16.4 along with his quite extended family. 

He was a successful businessman from Xiamen, sporting a Hollywood baseball cap and carrying a black crocodile Chanel bag worth the entire GDP of northern Syria (which, by the way, is sending prospective political refugees to California in increasing numbers). 

I asked Mr 1% China about Mitt's announced currency/trade war against the Middle Kingdom. His laughter boomed all the way to the canyons and way deep into the Pacific. 

Rodeo, Beverly and Canon Drive are living demonstrations of the top 1/10th of 1% rolling in dough. They are back to 25% of the US's total income; that includes a sizeable lot of Tehrangeles - the Iranian-American diaspora. 

Tax rates for the 1/10th of the 1% are lower than ever; so let's party like it's ... 2007. At least in California, the overwhelming majority - following Hollywood's dictate - votes Obama. Translation, Thai-style: same same but different. 

It's pivoting time 

Crisscrossing Southern California, one suspects Mitt Romney may have employed a secret Hollywood hustler as ghost adviser; after all he's essentially paying his nearly $5 trillion-in-tax-cuts plan with a platinum card. Sounds like those Hollywood projects which are forever "in development". 

A Tax Policy Center (TPC) nonpartisan study has revealed that Romney's way to make his 20% below George W Bush-era levels tax cut plan "revenue neutral" - which would be to cap deductions at $17,000 - would raise just $1.7 trillion over 10 years. 

The TPC had to apologize for Mitt's trademark lack of specifics on just about everything regarding his plan, stressing that that makes the analysis imperfect. 

After Asia Times Online reported it last Thursday (see Mitt the Binder, Asia Times Online, October 19, 2012) the New York Times and other US websites are also waking up to Mitt's economic hit man, Glenn Hubbard. 

It's never enough to remember that professor Hubbard was key in justifying the humongous mortgage derivatives bubble at the heart of the Dubya-sanctioned Great Recession; call him the Toxic Derivative King. Palpable consequences include an astronomic $7 trillion - and counting - depreciation of home values, the over $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and perennial high unemployment, which the Romney campaign describes, with a straight face, as an Obama concoction. 

And yes; Hubbard was the ultimate architect of the Bush tax cuts. In terms of getting a cut himself, he is no slouch; only in 2011 he pocketed a cool $785,000 for sitting on three different corporate boards and as a consultant to Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. 

Now imagine Hubbard as Mitt's Secretary of the Treasury. Couple his financial weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) with Iran's non-existent WMDs as the pretext for the next US Middle East war, plus this three-month-old Los Angeles Times bombshellabout Romney financing Bain Capital with shady foreign funds and boasting returns worthy of a major crime syndicate, and we got the perfect plot advancement for our LA noir screenplay. 

To counter so much darkness, the Roving Eyemobile extended its trail - with a glance at Camp Pendleton where Marines get ready for that "pivoting" towards Asia-Pacific - all the way to the quintessential industrial-military complex town, San Diego, for a long, uplifting conversation with a blessed soul; Tom Feeley, the founder and editor of Information Clearing House - one of a select few, absolutely indispensable websites to learn about assorted Empire business. 

Tom's newsletter is now reaching 79,000 global daily readers - and counting, a great deal of them US expats quite familiar with Empire shenanigans. It doesn't take a James Joyce to truly appreciate an Irishman's conversation; ours, in a word, was priceless. We agreed that the whole geopolitical groove as it's moving increasingly resembles a Beckett play, minus the hieratic elegance. 

I ended this Southern California swing back "home" - as in the Frolic Room, Hollywood's ultimate dive, among drifters, punks and instant philosophers of the 47% variety. It certainly beats reading a RAND corporation report. 

The Frolic Room - with its superb neon sign - is where the real Black Dahlia used to sip her martinis in the 1940s, before she was delivered her Big Sleep, tragically, horrendously murdered. And now we wait - not for death, which is a certainty, but for Obama and Mitt to show us at least the glimpse of a worthy vision, a palpable dream. 

Forget it; a Hollywood lie is all we're gonna get. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). 

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com 

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

THE ROVING EYE Obama plays ball By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE 

Obama plays ball

By Pepe Escobar 

LOS ANGELES - There's no question: US President Barack Obama finally got off the bench in New York, came out swinging and actually scored a few three-pointers at the second presidential debate. 

The debate also shed further light on the economic and foreign policy of the Republican robot posing as a product (or is it the other way around?). It seems Mitt Romney's outlook is when in doubt, blame it on China. 

The robot/product was relentless in his demonization of the Middle Kingdom. "On day one", he will single out China as "a currency manipulator" (China's Central Bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan, who is more worried by Washington's quantitative easing scam, is hardly choking on his wontons; and by the way the yuan did strengthen against the US dollar by nearly 9% during Obama's term). 

Romney will "keep China playing by the rules" (rules that US corporations love to explore to their benefit). He also accused China of "hacking into our computers" (as if the West never hacked big time into Iran's computers); and overall "China has been cheating over the years". Spy satellites might have been able to register a roar of collective laughter emanating from the halls of the Zhongnanhai in a hazy Beijing morning. 

According to Romney, China - that "cheating" land that assembles iPads - would not be a match for the US if the playing field were level. Translation: Romney seeks salvation via an inflation of low-wage, low-skill, assembly line-style US jobs. 

At least Obama deployed a reality check on Romney's Terminator policy on China. "When he talks about getting tough on China - yeah, keep in mind that Governer Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China. And he's currently investing in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That's - Governor, you're the last person who's going to get tough on China." 

Three-pointer in da house

Obama also nailed it when he related to the US leveling the playing field by more investment in education - forming more scientists, engineers, technology experts. Romney's (predictable) response: "Government does not create jobs." 

What the exchange itself did not create was a real debate on the essence of turbo-capitalism; on why, irrespective of Obama, much less Romney, the global power of private capital has been calcified as hierarchical and organized as a financial economy - politically conquering the whole world, and incarnating itself as much in neoliberal democracies as in military dictatorships and petro-monarchies of the GCC (Gulf Counter-Revolution Club) kind.

That would be too much to expect. So we were back to the mantra of the day, week, month, year, decade, as repeated by Romney: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear bomb". 

The next debate, on Monday, will be mostly on foreign policy; would any of these candidates please show some respect to US - and world - public opinion and at least acknowledge the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, released last month? These are the two money quotes. (1) The IAEA is confident about "the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran"; and (2) The IAEA can "conclude that all nuclear materials in Iran is in peaceful activities." 

Again, that would be too much to expect. 

Mitt does terror 

Assorted right-wingers were frantically betting on Libya to provide the definitive "gotcha" moment for Romney. 

Here's Romney: "The President just said something which is on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration. Is that what you're saying? Want to get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." 

Here's the moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley; "He did in fact, sir, call it an act of terror." 

Obama: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" 

Candy: "He did call it an act of terror." 

Another Obama three-pointer. If only that would have led to a real debate on what kind of "leading from behind" was the whole Libya operation; the role of Africom and NATO; the hidden agendas behind the toppling of Gaddafi; and the inevitability of blowback when you are in bed with Salafi-jihadists formerly known as terrorists in a push to dismantle a secular Arab regime. 

That would be too much to expect. 

As for Romney's boast that his jobs plan would create 12 million US jobs, that had already been debunked by the Washington Post in the morning before the debate. So it got down to Obama finally nailing 47% Romney in a way that left the robot/product literally speechless. 

"Former" 47% Romney has now coined a new motto - "I care about the 100%" - repeated ad infinitum. 

Obama: "When he said behind closed doors that 47% of the country consider themselves victims who refused personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about ... Folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives, veterans who've sacrificed for this country, students who are out let it trying to hopefully advance their own dreams but also this country's dreams, soldiers overseas fighting for us right now, people working hard every day paying payroll taxes, gas taxes, but don't make enough income." 

Actually, that's about the overwhelming majority of the US population. Yet as it stands the future of the country up to 2016 essentially rests on a bunch of undecided Ohio voters. That's Obama's firewall (he was winning Ohio by 68% before the debate, according to Nate Silver's projections). 

Will the firewall hold? Next Monday will be mostly about foreign policy; let's see whether China is capable of swinging a US presidential race. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). 

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

It’s Not Just the Oil. The Middle East War and the Conquest of Natural Gas Reserves

Are the Wars in the Middle East and North Africa Really About Oil?

The Iraq war was really about oil, according to Alan Greenspan, John McCain,George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer andothers.

Dick Cheney made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11.

The Sunday Herald reported:

Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this).   According to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before 9/11 that they would either get “a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs”, the former if they greenlighted the pipeline, the second if they didn’t. See this, this and this.

Congressman Ed Markey said:

Well, we’re in Libya because of oil.

Senator Graham agreed.

And the U.S. and UK overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Iran because he announced that he would nationalize the oil industry in that country.

It’s a War for GAS

But it’s about gas as much as oil …

As key war architect John Bolton said last year:

The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.

For example, the pipeline which the U.S. wanted to run through Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was to transport gas as much as oil.

John C.K. Daly notes:

The proposed $7.6 billion, 1,040 mile-long TAPI [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India ... admittedly a mouthful, but you'll be hearing a lot about it in the coming months] natural gas pipeline has a long regional history, having first been proposed even before the Taliban captured Kabul, as in 1995 Turkmenistan and Pakistan initialed a memorandum of understanding. TAPI, with a carrying capacity of 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen natural gas a year, was projected to run from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad gas field across Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate at the northwestern Indian town of Fazilka.

TAPI would have required the assent of the Taliban, and two years after the MoU was signed the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Ltd. consortium, led by U.S. company Unocal, flew a Taliban delegation to Unocal headquarters in Houston, where the Taliban signed off on the project.

The Taliban visit to the U.S. has been confirmed by the mainstream media.  Indeed, here is a picture of the Taliban delegation visiting Unocal’s Houston headquarters in 2007:

U.S. companies such as Unocal (lead on the proposed pipeline) and Enron (and see this), with full U.S. government support, continued to woo the Taliban right up until 2001 in an attempt to sweet-talk them into green-lighting the pipeline.

For example, two French authors with extensive experience in intelligence analysis (one of them a former French secret service agent) – claim:

Until August [2001], the US government saw the Taliban regime “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia” from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, “the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that.”

Pepe Escobar notes:

Under newly elected president George W Bush… Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including undersecretary of state Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist.

***

Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire’s fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year’s end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.) The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule.

Soon after the start of the Afghan war, Karzai became president (while Le Monde reported that Karzai was a Unocal consultant, it is possible that it was a mix-up with the Unocal consultant and neocon who got Karzai  elected, Zalmay Khalilzad).  In any event, a mere year later, a U.S.-friendly Afghani regime signed onto TAPI.

India just formally signed on to Tapi. This ended the long-proposed competitor: an Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline.

Competing Pipe Dreams

Virtually all of the current global geopolitical tension is based upon whose vision of the “New Silk Road” will control.

But before we can understand the competing visions, we have to actually see the maps:

And here are the competing pipelines backed by the U.S. and by Iran, before India sided with the U.S.:

With maps in hand, we can now discuss the great geopolitical battle raging between the U.S. and its allies, on the one hand, and Russia, China and Iran, on the other hand.

Iran and Pakistan are still discussing a pipeline without India, and Russia backs the proposal as well.

Indeed, the “Great Game” being played right now by the world powers largely boils down to the United States and Russia fighting for control over Eurasian oil and gas resources:

Russia and the USA have been in a state of competition in this region, ever since the former Soviet Union split up, and Russia is adamant on keeping the Americans out of its Central Asian backyard. Russia aims to increase European gas dominance on its resources whereas the US wants the European Union (EU) to diversify its energy supply, primarily away from Russian dominance. There are already around three major Russian pipelines that are supplying energy to Europe and Russia has planned two new pipelines.

The rising power China is also getting into this Great Game:

The third “big player” in this New Great Game is China, soon to be the world’s biggest energy consumer, which is already importing gas from Turkmenistan via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to its Xinjiang province — known as the Central Asia-China Pipeline — which may tilt the balance towards Asia. Pepe Escobar calls it the opening of the 21st century Silk Road in 2009 when this pipeline became operational.  China’s need for energy is projected to increase by 150 per cent which explains why it has signed probably the largest number of deals not just with the Central Asian republics but also with the heavily sanctioned Iran and even Afghanistan. China has planned around five west-east gas pipelines, within China, of which one is operational (domestically from Xinjiang to Shanghai) and others are under construction and will be connected to Central Asian gas reserves.

China is also pushing for an alternative to TAPI: an Turkmenistan-Afghan-China pipeline.

Iran is also a player in its own right:

Another important country is Iran. Iran sits on the second largest gas reserves in the world and has over 93 billion barrels of proven oil reserves with a total of 4.17 million barrels per day in 2009. To the dislike of the United States, Iran is a very active player. The Turkmenistan-Iran gas pipeline, constructed in 1997, was the first new pipeline going out from Central Asia. Furthermore, Iran signed a $120 billion gas exploration deal, often termed the “deal of the century” with China. This gas deal signed in 2004 entails the annual export of approximately 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China for 25 years. It also gives China’s state oil company the right to participate in such projects as exploration and drilling for petrochemical and gas industries in Iran. Iran also plans to sell its gas to Europe through its Persian Gas pipeline which can become a rival to the US Nabucco pipeline. More importantly, it is also the key party in the proposed Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline, also formerly known as the “peace pipeline.” Under this pipeline plan, first proposed in 1995, Iran will sell gas from its mega South Pars fields to Pakistan and India.

China’s support for Iran is largely explained by oil and gas:

Referring to China, Escobar states “most important of all, ‘isolated’ Iran happens to be a supreme matter of national security for China, which has already rejected the latest Washington sanctions without a blink” and that “China may be the true winner from Washington’s new sanctions, because it is likely to get its oil and gas at a lower price, as the Iranians grow ever more dependent on the China market.”

China has also shown interest in the construction of IP on the Pakistani side and further expanding it to China. This means that starting at Gwadar, Beijing plans to build another pipeline, crossing Balochistan and then following the Karakoram Highway northwards all the way to Xinjiang, China’s Far West. China is also most likely to get the construction contract for this pipeline. As stated above, Chinese firms are part of the consortium awarded the contract for the financial consultancy for the project. Closer participation in the Asian energy projects would also help China increase its influence in the region for its objective of creating the “string of pearls” across the region — which has often scared India as an encirclement strategy by the Chinese government.

Why Syria?

You might ask why there is so much focus on Syria right now.

Well, Syria is an integral part of the proposed 1,200km Arab Gas Pipeline:

Here are some additional graphics courtesy of Adam Curry:

So yes, regime change was planned against Syria (as well as Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) 20 years ago.

And yes, attacking Syria weakens its close allies Iran and Russia … and indirectly China.

But Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why it is now being targeted.

Just as the Taliban was scheduled for removal after they demanded too much in return for the Unocal pipeline, Syria’s Assad is being targeted because he is not a reliable “player”.

Specifically, Turkey, Israel and their ally the U.S. want an assured flow of gas through Syria, and don’t want a Syrian regime which is not unquestionably loyal to those 3 countries to stand in the way of the pipeline … or which demands too big a cut of the profits.

Pepe Escobar sums up what is driving current global geopolitics and war:

What you’re really talking about is what’s happening on the immense energy battlefield that extends from Iran to the Pacific Ocean. It’s there that the liquid war for the control of Eurasia takes place.

Yep, it all comes down to black gold and “blue gold” (natural gas), hydrocarbon wealth beyond compare, and so it’s time to trek back to that ever-flowing wonderland – Pipelineistan.

Postscript: It’s not just the Neocons who have planned this strategy. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser helped to map out the battle plan for Eurasian petroleum resources over a decade ago, and Obama is clearly continuing the same agenda.

Some would say that the wars are also be about forcing the world into dollars and private central banking, but that’s a separate story.

The Massive Threat to Public Health Posed by Food Insecurity and What is Being Done About It

The Massive Threat to Public Health Posed by Food Insecurity and What is Being Done About It
by Charlotte Kellogg

It should come as nothing new to readers of Milfuegos that increased pesticide use and poor resource management are posing a serious risk to global food security. There are a number of long-term fixes that could be implemented both at home and abroad, though, which is the focus of today’s piece. Writer Charlotte Kellogg regularly publishes articles for students enrolled in public health degree programs with a particular focus on global hunger and disease. Readers interested in turning their passion for sustainability into a career should check her out.

The Massive Threat to Public Health Posed by Food Insecurity and What is Being Done About It

As the global population booms, food security is fast emerging as one of the most pressing public health concerns both in Westernized countries and in the developing world. Though people in traditionally impoverished regions are at the most risk for hunger and malnutrition, the problem is endemic to the global community at large. Basic food availability is one of the biggest challenges, as more people need more food and production cannot always live up to the demand. More concerning is availability, however. Broken channels of distribution and regions of gross food waste abutting those of shortage shine light on what may be best described as a stewardship problem. The crisis has grown so large that there really is no single solution. Better international food management and the implementation of farming technologies both new and old may make a big difference, though, particularly if implemented in a coordinated, targeted way.

The food crisis is often most poignant when seen in terms of the very young. Children who grow up malnourished or with diseases related to food shortage often fail to succeed academically, and have less potential for advancement. For many, this essentially “locks” them into the downward spiral of poverty, all but guaranteeing that they will never rise above the conditions of their birth. Many scholars see better food security as one of the simplest ways of rectifying this situation.

“The benefits of better food in early childhood last a lifetime,” The Economist said when summarizing the results of a 2011 “nutrition trial.” The trial centered on starving children in Guatemala but, the editors said, could also apply to those living in impoverished communities anywhere.  “Those who got the extra food up to 36 months left school later, with much higher educational qualifications than those who were stunted by malnutrition. They married partners with more education. Women who were better fed as girls had fewer pregnancies and miscarriages,” the study found.  Even income and earning potential was affected: men who were well-fed as children earned about 20 percent more than their malnourished counterparts, and women increased their odds of living in a non-impoverished household by about 30 percent.

Ensuring that children have the food and nutrients they need in childhood is often easier said than done, however. A number of government and international aid initiatives have tried and failed to come up with lasting solutions over the past decades. While most have made some impact at least at first, it has been difficult to track sustained progress over time.

Part of this may have to do with approach. “In the short-term, measures such as school feeding programs, conditional cash transfers, and food-for-work programs can help to ease pressure on the poor,” World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said in a July 2012 briefing about the growing food security crisis in places like Africa. These measures are not in and of themselves a cure, though.  “In the medium- to long-term, the world needs strong and stable policies and sustained investments in agriculture in poor countries,” Kim said.

One of the best agricultural investments may come in the form of technology. Agricultural technologies exist in a wide spectrum. Some, such as green resourcing, aim to help farmers realize crop potential by learning more about their land and ecological indicators, and are virtually intervention-free. Others, such as genetic modification and biodynamics, aim to create more sustainable, drought-resistant or pesticide-resistant crops that can be grown with relative ease most anywhere.

Though the food security problem is growing, it does not have to turn into a global pandemic. Proper resourcing, better education, and responsible use of technology can all contribute to a tomorrow that will be brighter—and fuller—than most of the yesterdays in recent memory.

******
Charlotte Kellog is a writer with http://www.publichealthdegree.com/, a resource for current and prospective public health students.