Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
While going back through old Iraq posts, I came across this one, written amidst all the right-wing clucking and condemnation of us freedom-haters who weren't cheering—indeed were mighty skeptical about—Iraq's purple finger election.
I'd stipulate that theoretically the victory hands power to the theocrats. We've yet to see whether this election results in the formation of a government and, further, whether that government has any sort of stability. Neither result is guaranteed.
Technically, of course, a government was formed. However, my skepticism about its ability to function, well, that looks pretty good in hindsight.
Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows. Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister? Absent, living in Amman and London. Adnan Pachachi, the octogenarian statesman? Also gone, in Abu Dhabi. Others who failed to appear Monday included Saleh Mutlak, a senior Sunni legislator; several Shiites and Kurds; and Ayad al-Samaraei, chairman of the finance committee, whose absence led Mr. Mashhadani to ask: "When will he be back? After we approve the budget?"
It was a joke barbed with outrage. Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill. Nearly every session since November has been adjourned because as few as 65 members made it to work, even as they and the absentees earned salaries and benefits worth about $120,000. Part of the problem is security, but Iraqi officials also said they feared that members were losing confidence in the institution and in the country's fragile democracy. As chaos has deepened, Parliament's relevance has gradually receded.
Emphasis mine.
Do they have daylight savings time in Iraq? Maybe the other 210 members didn't change their clocks. They should wait a full hour before they get all hasty and adjourn like that.
Posted by: Cangrejero at January 24, 2007 01:14 PMhttp://www.dissentradio.com/radio/palast_01_23_07.mp3
This is a very good interview of Greg Palast. He believes that the real Emperor Palpatine behind the whole Iraq thing is James Baker in cahoots with the House of Saud. The conspiracy theory makes sense.
I dont know if the facts add up, but the story fits.
Posted by: Jon at January 24, 2007 08:25 PMApo, I didn't know you then, but kudos for being willing to take a clear-headed stance at that time.
Posted by: SlouchingTom at January 26, 2007 03:41 AMGood link, Jon.
A lot of what Palast says makes sense. I understand how the Baker boys profit by keeping Iraqi production down and prices high, but how does this help the Saudis, as it increases the importance of Iran and Venezuela? Or do the Saudis control enough production to cause enough volatility to discourage further investments in those places?
It sounds like the Saudis/Baker boys want continued instability in Iraq so as to keep production in Basra offline - I imagine this helps the Saudi maintain control at home, too. It also helps explain the failure of the Admininstration to invest in really winning.
Sounds like the good guys are really the Iranians, who would do more to bring prices down.
Posted by: SlouchingTom at January 26, 2007 04:15 AMI think how Palast sees it is this way, briefly...
Iran and Venezuela want moderate to high oil prices such that companies will want to develop their sludgy oil. They can dig their crude out for about 30 bucks a barrel.
The Saudis and the Gulf States want high but variable priced oil: they can dig it out for five bucks a barrel. As long as there is a huge profit margin for them and the developers, they can afford to vary the price downward from time to time. This out-screws the competition.
If Iraq were to develop their oil, they could do it at an intermediate price. The Sunnis in Iraq are not sitting on any easily developed oil. They lose in an Iraqi confederation, and want a strong central government with a Sunni Mustache in power. They are spiritually aligned with the Saudis, who give them money and guns.
The Shiites in Iraq want a decentralized Iraq--or an Iraq with them in tight central control. They are backed by Iran in one way or another. Iran prefers to give guns anbd money to SCIRI or Dawa and is leery of Sadr.
Iraq is a lynchpin in OPEC and in oil price. It is the prize. If Iran controls Iraq, they get to write OPEC's policy, and maintain a very high price. If the Saudis control Iraq, they get to write It,
and enable a variable price.
Either way, at the moment, fighting in Iraq keeps its oil off market, raising price. Both sides of OPEC temporarily benefit from the conflict there. But ultimately, there are only so many dead people you can stack up. And Saudi oil while abundant will not last forever. So someone has to move in and control the sands near Basra.
There are other players. Nigeria is one. They have some of the finest, oil on God's Green Earth. "Coincidentally," the development in the Niger river deltas is very stymied by low-level revolution and 4GW. This keeps their oil difficult to bring to market, too.
Where do the neocons come in? They want to democratize the whole region and liberate the oil from state control in all those countries...that, and secure a greater regional presence for Israel. But Baker and Co. are not neocon. They want the oil under the control of client State control, not the free market.
I think this is what Palast was saying, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2007 12:08 PM