Energy blog


Irakin sodan syy on öljy Pelletieren kristallipallo

Kimmo Klemola

Professori Stephen C. Pelletiere, joka oli 1988 CIA:n korkeassa virassa 5000 kurdin kaasutuksen aikaan ja tutki tapahtunutta paikan päällä Irakissa, kyseenalaisti New York Timesissa [1] Irakin osuuden tapahtumiin. Välittömästi tapahtuman jälkeen Yhdysvaltain armeijan (Defense Intelligence Agency) raportti totesi Iranin olevan syyllinen. Irakin ei tiedetty käyttäneen tai omistavan kurdit tappanutta syanidia. Pelletiereä ärsytti NYT:ssä, että Bushin hallinto nosti tapahtuman esiin propagandasyistä myydessään sotaa, vaikka syyllistä ei todellisuudessa tiedetä.

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf."

Pelletiere piti vajaa kaksi kuukautta ennen Irakiin hyökkäämistä puheen Bonaventure Universityssä New Yorkissa. Hänellä tuntui olevan kristallipallo... (ohessa oma lyhennelmäni puheesta) [2]

"The control of oil is the game that America is playing in the Gulf. Control not possession is the objective. America does not need to possess Iraq’s oil. However, it must have control over how much oil that country will produce. At the same time America is going into Iraq to gain control of Opec.

Britain is the most forward of any country in backing American invasion in Iraq. When in 1972 the present ruler of Iraq Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq’s oil it was Britain, which primarily suffered as the two British companies British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were ousted in the takeover. I think it is a fair assumption that Britain counts on its oil companies reacquiring their former possessions in the event of an American takeover of Iraq.

France and Germany very much fear that should the United States invade it would turn all of the Gulf, not the regimes but the citizenry, against America and after that we will see an escalation of terrorist attacks. In other words France and Germany foresee that an American takeover will in a long run do more harm than good.

The so-called Wolfowitz doctrine worked out by the US Assistance Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz envisions the United States running a lot more of these preemptive strikes such as this one against Iraq. In Wolfowitz’s vision the United States will go after Iran next, and then Syria.

The war is about oil. However, it is not the case that America wants to physically process Iraq’s oil so that it can sell it. It is rather that America feels it must have influence over Iraq’s oil production. Only by having that can we be sure of regulating prices and only by regulating prices can we be certain of keeping world economy on an even keel.

Other reasons for invading Iraq are preemptive protection of Israel and the water resources of Iraq."

Huomasitte varmaan kohdan Iran?!


  1. Pelletiere Stephen C., A war crime or an act of war?, The New York Times, January 31, 2003. 

  2. Pelletiere Stephen C., CIA Analysis: The Predicament Mr. Bush and the Pentagon hawks have gotten US into, Speech at St. Bonaventure University, New York, January 27, 2003.



Energy blog