The Anglo-American Fear Of Arab Nationalism

The usurpation of Iraq is virtually complete and it is quite obvious to the serious observer that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" had little to do with emancipating the Iraqi citizenry. What happened to Saddam’s apocalyptic weapons of mass destruction arsenal that, according to President Bush, was a "threat to civilization"? We may also discount the notion that Iraq was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which the administration worked so vociferously at attempting to prove. It is almost unarguable that the Bush and Blair cabal purposely deceived the world regarding the Iraqi threat and are continuing to engage in these pathetic attempts at masking their true intentions.

Anglo-American policy in the Middle East is like a maze and it is constantly changing depending on various shifts in power. However, there is one consistent concept that overrides all of the rifts and shifts in power among the U.S. and British policymakers. The total suppression of Arab nationalism is the most integral part of U.S. and British policy in the Near East. History has shown with pristene clarity that this is a truism. In 1953, the CIA, with the assistance of British intelligence, was the chief orchestrator of a coup in Iran which removed democratically elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. The primary reason for this action related to Dr. Mossadegh’s oil nationalization movement of 1950-53 which would have given Iranian’s more control of their own resources. Of course this was inconceivable among U.S. and British officials because Middle Eastern leaders are supposed to be like vassals, so how dare someone attempt to take control of their countries resources.

The Iraq-Iran war is definitely a case in which the overriding concept of divisiveness rears its head. The U.S. supported both countries during the eight year conflict vascillating between an Islamic zealot and a secular pan-nationalist. The U.S.military aid actually contributed to the drawn out conflict considering both countries were economically strapped after years of extermination each other. The U.S. tended to lean more towards Iraq as the conflict began to cease. It is my belief that policy makers at the time viewed Saddam as less of a threat than the Muslim unifying Khomaini with his revolutionary Islamic Republic rhetoric.

Every time I hear President Bush meander about bringing democracy to Iraq and then to the rest of the Middle East, one can’t help but chuckle. The modus operandi of the U.S. is to disproportionately fund regimes that constantly oppress their population and then give them the eloquent term "moderate democracies" or on the road towards democracy. Take Saudi Arabia, not that is a paradigm for citizen participation. Or Israel,whose citizen receive more American tax-payer subsidies than most Americans, all while the Israeli government has occupied Palestinian territories for the last 26 years.

The unifying of the Arab masses is the single biggest threat to U.S. hegemony. The concept of Arabs actually controlling the resources that are in there respective countries terrifies American and British elites. Osama bin Laden in a speech 4 years ago said that when his forces for Islamic Revolution reclaimed Arab lands, they would raise the price of oil to 144 dollars per barrel. The thought of such an event causes serious bouts of hypertension for elites. Regardless of the rhetoric in Fortune magazine or the Wall Street Journal about the technology sector being the backbone of the economy, oil and the weapons that the U.S. sell to maintain control of that oil are the backbone of the global economy, which is why the threat of Arabs taking back their resources scares the hell out of American and British elites.