I just want to echo rjung. Why the hell are the US and Israel making decisions about oil that does not belong to them? Why should either of those countries have any say at all in where those pipelines go? It’s really none of their business is it?
Your first point is highly debatable as most countries in the region didn’t seem to see it that way.
Your second and third points are at odds. Why wasn’t the force in Saudi Arabia reducing support for Hamas? Also the trend does not seem to be a decrease in support for these groups
Your last two points could be accomplished in a number of more cost effecient ways. Certainly in a better political manner than setting up an Israeli pipeline.
Sam even you have to admit this is a politically stupid idea. It plays right into the accusations of the anti-invasion/occupation crowd.
Well the US has an obligation to restore Iraq, which requires money, which requires something to sell. The only thing Iraq has to sell is oil.
Now I’d think that piping it out through existing channels would be safer and cheaper but what do I know?
So where would the Iraqis make most profit to reinvest in the country?
From existing (repaired) Iraqi pipelines and Iraqi harbours?
or
Paying fees for partly Israeli pipelines and loading from Israeli harbours?
You’ve missed a link in the logic chain. You start with saying the US has an obligation to restore Iraq but end with saying how Iraq must pay for it. Which is it?
I would agree with your second statement but what do I know either? 
So, what do we have?
How much is Iraq benefitting from all that’s going on?
Do we have here a country invaded for no apparent reason that is now being sold off to the (selected) highest bidders or not?
Where were we on the conspiracy thing?
Was this all planned in advance?
And by who?
Who’s paying for it and who is reaping the profits?
Is it really that far out to call FOUL?
CarnalK, my first point is fine as we are dealing with American tax payers and American politicians. Their perceptions, not others, are relevant to American decisions.
Points 2 and 3 are not in conflict. Point 3 relates to active American involvement within the region through military, intelligence and administrative operations, bordering on both Syria and Iran. Point 2 deals with removal of a military garrison not neighboring both countries.
Point 4 was called tenuous and as I pointed out 5 could be done much better
As for restoring Iraq, perhaps it would be better to say that the US has taken on the responsibility to help direct the recovery of Iraq, through Iraqi resources. I believe this is where the rat hole begins by the way.
Now, as to pumping the oil west, perhaps the investment is lower than restoring the southern lines and harbours. Of course that could be a source of employment for Iraq, at least in the near term.
It’s not an either/or. Iraqi has extremely limited harbor facilities, and it’s not just due to limited funding. Geographically speaking, they don’t have a great port situation. They couldn’t handle the amount of traffic that would occur if full production were to go to their harbors.
Knowing this, production from the northern fields has always been diverted to the Mediterranean. Currently, there is one such pipeline going through Turkey. And I believe the Hussein regime was trying to get one through Syria.
To maximize their revenue, Iraq does need to go through another country to the Mediterranean. The only question is what route it goes through. Israel might actually be a better choice than Turkey, economically speaking.
So they were psychological benefits? Debatable, but I won’t argue it.
On point 2&3, I don’t know. Since I don’t think the military presence in either country is going to be long term politically beneficial, it just looks like a shell game to me.
Exactly. What some call an obligation to restore Iraq others see as a lock on reconstruction contracts.
Well, if you read the cited article, Iraq already pays Turkey a substantial transit fee to pipe oil westwards.
If you look at the map, you’ll notice that Iraq has no ports on the west (where the biggest markets are). Apparently if you ship oil out of Iraq by tanker it has to go through the Suez canal which adds a lot to the cost.
A pipeline to the west is therefore a logical and efficient idea. Haifa is a modern port with refineries and much of the pipeline infrastructure exists already.
No one has argued that the recipients of the oil would not be paying the going rate for it. So there are no valid claims that this oil is being plundered.
If you read this article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4651744-102275,00.html
you can see that at least potential governing bodies in Iraq have been consulted. Israel has also sounded out Jordan on the subject.
So let’s summarize the arguments against this idea. Well, it mostly comes down to “Israel is eeevil. and we (also evil) Americans have no right to force the Iraqis to do something so heinous as to recognize one of their neighbors instead of trying to exterminate them.”
I’m convinced.
If the American’s percieved a strategic threat (i.e. Kuwait defense, Oil flow, Saudi irritation to troop presence etc.) then to them it existed.
The fact that others might disagree doesn’t remove the obligation of the administration to address the precieved threat once it is recognized.
The same could be said for North Korea/US (South Korean & Japan) the perception of a threat means they have to address it if they can.
Like I said, we’re starting in on the rat hole.
The point is that the US has no right to be making decisions for Iraq or “forcing them to recognize” anything. It would be better for Iraq to rebuild its own pipelines or build new ones than to give any control whatever to Israel, especially as Israel has proven many times over the years that it cannot be trusted to honor its word.
Why should Iraqi resources be used to py for the damage done by the US? It’s not Iraq’s fault that they were illegally invaded. It’s up to the criminals (the US and Britain) to pay for the damage not the victims.
Unless it goes through the pipeline to Turkey, which is on the west and, amazingly enough, has ports too. But you mentioned it already, didn’t you?
So what is gained by building another one that does the same thing? Doesn’t one have to look at the geopolitics (and other politics) to explain it?
Yaagh! Gateway timeout ate my post, luckily I never trust the hamsters and saved it in the ol’ buffer:
Well sure, but thats what I meant by psychological benefits. They didn’t actually remove a threat, some just see it that way and feel good about it. I mean this is quite different than the invasion of Kuwait. There can be no doubt that was a strategic threat to oil control, he actually grabbed more oil. Quite different than “He might attack someone some day”.
Diogenes, ignoring your debatable contention that Israel is inherently untrustworthy, just how does being on the receiving end of a pipeline put anyone in control? All the control is on the side of the people who are putting stuff * in * the pipeline.
Well I’m assuming the overall state of Iraq’s economy can best be attributed to a 10 year ruinous war with Iran, a second adventure with Kuwait, overall dismissal of obvious ways to eliminate the trade embargo imposed by the UN and finally a short 4-8 week war with the US.
Would you have a cite for American damages due to the current war?
It would seem that the vast majority of Iraq’s economic issues could be laid at the Baathist party’s feet. I doubt that the American’s inflicted $50 billion in damages over the 4-6 week period of the war.
CarnalK, it would be much better to hack this out over beers. Ok then, the presence of American troops was to prevent a repeat of the Kuwait invasion. Their presence though entailed increasing pressure on the Saudi royal family leading to increased instability for our (the West) local ally/oil source. It also acted as a talking point for various badly bearded zealots to recruit followers. By keeping troops there the area’s stability could go to hell; by removing them the balance of power could go to hell.
Now the approach to removing the threat might be objectionable, no doubt, but I do see how it did exist.
Of course, now we (the royal we) have new problems. Which is why I need a beer.
You just know, somewhere, Coll wants to smack my analysis upside the head. 
Israel would have the ability to either steal or prevent the sale of Iraqi oil at least temporarily. The pipeline would also be at the mercy of sabateurs in Israel.
More importantly, I just don’t like the idea of the US and israel making decisions about resources that do not belong to them. Its Iraq’s decison to make and that’s the end of it.
He isn’t hard to find, if you really want to know.