Sunday, 20 November 2016
Why Trump said, "We've gotta take their oil."
Iraq has one of the largest reserves of oil in the world, able to compete with countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran. Currently the world is experiencing an oil glut and we certainly don't need more of it.
So why did Trump say about Iraq, "We've gotta take their oil"?
Was he suggesting we go back to ancient times when those who conquered a land would plunder it afterwards? Is Trump suggesting occupying Iraq and sucking the oil dry without benefiting Iraqis one iota?
Of course not.
Trump speaks in very simple language so that a wide range of people might understand it. In Trump language, "We've gotta take their oil," means to increase oil trade between Iraq and the West to a large extent.
Increase of trade in oil between Iraq and the West benefits both sides. Were Iraq to become a more powerful oil producer, Iraq would stabilize considerably.
Trump's line, interpreted as a Fascist's remark, is actually that of a pragmatist: Iraq would make a valuable oil ally in the years to come.
This is especially true since ISIS invaded Iraq and declared a Caliphate. Alistair Crooke rightly points out that ISIS' proclamation of a Salafi Caliphate has ignited a time bomb inserted into the heart of the Middle-East: in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is not far from exploding. With Trump promising Syria's Government the right to continue to exist (unlike Obama, Clinton and almost every American Establishment politician) Saudi Arabia looks set for explosion. It was always going to happen, but Saudi allies winning in Syria would have postponed the explosion.
Trump seems to have a far better grasp on the geopolitics of the Middle-East than most realise. In upping oil trade with Iraq, the West would be far less badly hit by the lack of oil caused by a Saudi regional explosion.
With ISIS and Al-Qaeda roaming through Saudi Arabia, Syria stabilized by Russia, Assad and Iran, Iraq the top oil-ally of the West, the region would look very different to the beginning of the Arab Spring.
Were Trump to pull this off, funding for terrorism would recede dramatically from individuals in the Arabian Gulf - who largely get their money from oil exports. Unfortunately for the region, much of ISIS and Al-Qaeda's funding can be traced back to rich individuals in Saudi Arabia and nearby Arabian Gulf states.
For Trump to anticipate the regional explosion in Saudi Arabia, stabilize Iraq by increasing oil trade would mean the war on terror could finally materialize into something resembling victory for the first time since 9-11.
Saturday, 22 October 2016
Tensions between Turkey and Iraq explained
Foreign Policy is a large sphere, especially regarding the Middle-East. With this in mind, I have decided to devote an entire blog to Iraq, partially because of the vastness of the topics associated with her, partially because I love her so much - mostly because she is more famous than her sisters.
In this post I intend to clarify why I believe tensions are rising between Iraq and Turkey.
Turkey's Erdogan has ambitions of restoring the Ottoman Empire. Erdogan is a dictator, yet unlike Bashar Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, he is an Islamist dictator rather than a secular one.
His ambitions of restoring the Ottoman Empire were exemplified in his support for the Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War. He supported large training camps of Syrian (and foreign) rebels in Turkey, trained to fight against secular President Bashar Al-Assad, with assistance in funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Erdogan's ambitions are also known by his increased relations with Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, Turkey has managed to maintain relations with Iran as he has increased relations with Saudi Arabia.
But where Erdogan's Turkey came undone was in the attempted coupe several months ago. This occurred because ISIS and other Syrian rebels were growing increasingly bold in terrorist attacks on Turkish soil, which were, in turn, caused by increased Russian support of Bashar Al-Assad and the deterioration of Turkish-Russian relations.
After the attempted coupe, relations between Turkey and Russia have improved remarkably. Erdogan now sees that the fate of Bashar Al-Assad with the fate of his own country: Turkey will destabilize if Syria's President falls.
With Russia set to stabilize Syria under Bashar Al-Assad, Turkey was looking for another country with which to gain influence in.
That country is Iraq.
Unlike Syria, Iraq is an American ally. Turkey, a member of NATO, would put the West in an awkward position if Erdogan chose to wage war in Iraq. If the West sided with Turkey, the West would lose influence in oil-rich Iraq. If the West sided with Iraq, the West would lose Turkey to Russia.
It is unclear whether or not Erdogan will wage war with Iraq, but if he did - and won the war - it would restore the Sunni-Shi'ite balance in the region to as it was before the Iraq War. Iraq, occupied by Turkey, would be under Sunni dominance rather than Shi'ite.
And unlike taking control of Syria through rebels, Turkey taking control of Iraq would stabilize the Middle-East.
This runs at the core of tensions between Turkey and Iraq. Turkey, in waging war with Iraq, would be stabilizing the region, as Russia is stabilizing the region via her war in Syria.
What is tempting for Erdogan is in attacking and subduing the Kurdish territory. The Obama Administration has given enormous power to the Kurds in Syria - subduing Kurds in Iraq would help restore that balance.
What else is tempting for Erdogan is, in controlling Iraq, Sunni Iraqis would have no ambition or desire for allying with ISIS in the future. It would help Turkey establish better relations with Saudi Arabia, as Turkey would share a border with Saudi via the Anbar Province, and would mean ISIS would not rear its ugly head in Sunni Iraq ever again.
The issue for Erdogan would be with southern Iraq and Baghdad, as controlling these regions would cause immense headaches for Iran. But, in Erdogan's mind, better problems with Iran than problems with Russia.
Whether Erdogan will invade Iraq is unclear. Whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were the President, the response to an Iraqi-Turkish war would likely be the same: neutrality.
In this post I intend to clarify why I believe tensions are rising between Iraq and Turkey.
Turkey's Erdogan has ambitions of restoring the Ottoman Empire. Erdogan is a dictator, yet unlike Bashar Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, he is an Islamist dictator rather than a secular one.
His ambitions of restoring the Ottoman Empire were exemplified in his support for the Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War. He supported large training camps of Syrian (and foreign) rebels in Turkey, trained to fight against secular President Bashar Al-Assad, with assistance in funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Erdogan's ambitions are also known by his increased relations with Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, Turkey has managed to maintain relations with Iran as he has increased relations with Saudi Arabia.
But where Erdogan's Turkey came undone was in the attempted coupe several months ago. This occurred because ISIS and other Syrian rebels were growing increasingly bold in terrorist attacks on Turkish soil, which were, in turn, caused by increased Russian support of Bashar Al-Assad and the deterioration of Turkish-Russian relations.
After the attempted coupe, relations between Turkey and Russia have improved remarkably. Erdogan now sees that the fate of Bashar Al-Assad with the fate of his own country: Turkey will destabilize if Syria's President falls.
With Russia set to stabilize Syria under Bashar Al-Assad, Turkey was looking for another country with which to gain influence in.
That country is Iraq.
Unlike Syria, Iraq is an American ally. Turkey, a member of NATO, would put the West in an awkward position if Erdogan chose to wage war in Iraq. If the West sided with Turkey, the West would lose influence in oil-rich Iraq. If the West sided with Iraq, the West would lose Turkey to Russia.
It is unclear whether or not Erdogan will wage war with Iraq, but if he did - and won the war - it would restore the Sunni-Shi'ite balance in the region to as it was before the Iraq War. Iraq, occupied by Turkey, would be under Sunni dominance rather than Shi'ite.
And unlike taking control of Syria through rebels, Turkey taking control of Iraq would stabilize the Middle-East.
This runs at the core of tensions between Turkey and Iraq. Turkey, in waging war with Iraq, would be stabilizing the region, as Russia is stabilizing the region via her war in Syria.
What is tempting for Erdogan is in attacking and subduing the Kurdish territory. The Obama Administration has given enormous power to the Kurds in Syria - subduing Kurds in Iraq would help restore that balance.
What else is tempting for Erdogan is, in controlling Iraq, Sunni Iraqis would have no ambition or desire for allying with ISIS in the future. It would help Turkey establish better relations with Saudi Arabia, as Turkey would share a border with Saudi via the Anbar Province, and would mean ISIS would not rear its ugly head in Sunni Iraq ever again.
The issue for Erdogan would be with southern Iraq and Baghdad, as controlling these regions would cause immense headaches for Iran. But, in Erdogan's mind, better problems with Iran than problems with Russia.
Whether Erdogan will invade Iraq is unclear. Whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were the President, the response to an Iraqi-Turkish war would likely be the same: neutrality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)