Home   Uninsured   Racism    Medicare    Medicaid/Medi-Cal    Mental Health    Healthcare Reform    War    Economics    All Articles   Search

2004-01-02 -- Britain Says U.S. Planned to Seize Oil in '73 Crisis

If anyone had doubts over whether the current Iraq occupation is about
controlling oil, they should be put to rest by  this story of US plans
to seize Mid-East oil during the 1973 OPEC boycott. (OPEC nations
refused to sell oil to the US because of its support for Israel in the
1973 Yom Kippur war.

Ironically, it was Kuaiti oil wells that the US was most nervous about
seizing, for fear that Iraq would enter and dislodge the US. Britain,
the US's oil partner, warned that a ten-year occupation would be
necessary, and that European relations would be disrupted. The
presence of the Soviet Union, both as a potential military force and
as a rival for people's loyalties, was a crucial factor.

Excerpts from other newspapers follow:


New York Times, January 2, 2004

Britain Says U.S. Planned to Seize Oil in '73 Crisis

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

LONDON, Jan. 1 - The United States government seriously contemplated
using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the
Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, according to a declassified British
government document made public on Thursday.

The top-secret document says that President Richard M. Nixon was
prepared to act more aggressively than previously thought to secure
America's oil supply if the embargo, imposed by Arab nations in
retaliation for America's support for Israel in the 1973 Middle East
war, did not end. In fact, the embargo was lifted in March 1974.

The declassified British memorandum said the United States considered
launching airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and Abu Dhabi, but only as a "last resort."

President Nixon's defense secretary, James R. Schlesinger, delivered
the warning to Lord Cromer, the British ambassador in Washington at
the time. In the document, Lord Cromer was quoted as saying of Mr.
Schlesinger, "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States
could not use force."

The seizure of the oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in
American thinking when they refer to the use of force," the memorandum
said.

The potential for such a military action was taken so seriously by
British intelligence services that a report was written listing the
most likely scenarios for the use of American force in the Middle East
and the consequences of each. The report, dated Dec. 12, 1973, was
titled "UK Eyes Alpha" and was sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath.

The memorandum was one of hundreds of documents released by Britain's
National Archives under a law that makes government papers public
after 30 years. Details of the document were reported on Thursday by
The Washington Post.

The exchange between Mr. Schlesinger and Lord Cromer came on the heels
of the war between Israel and Egypt and Syria that began in October
1973. As retaliation for American support for Israel in the war and in
an effort to sway world opinion, Arab members of OPEC imposed the oil
embargo.

The embargo led to petroleum shortages around the world and to sharp
increases in the price of gas in the United States.

As recounted by Lord Cromer, Mr. Schlesinger told him the United
States was unwilling to abide threats by "underdeveloped,
underpopulated" countries.

The document did not rule out the possibility that Washington would
consider pre-emptive strikes if Arab governments, "elated by the
success of the oil weapon," began issuing greater demands.

"The U.S. government might consider that it could not tolerate a
situation in which the U.S. and its allies were in effect at the mercy
of a small group of unreasonable countries," the document said.

As outlined in the memorandum, military action would be relatively
straightforward: two brigades were estimated to be needed to seize the
Saudi oil fields and one each for Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. In the case of
Abu Dhabi, the Americans might ask for British military cooperation.

The greatest threat would arise in Kuwait, the document said, "where
the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene."

The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years.
The use of force would also alienate Arab countries and irritate
Moscow, although a military confrontation with the Soviet Union would
be unlikely, the document said.

Discontent among Western allies was also cited as a possible
consequence of military action. "Since the United States would
probably claim to be acting for the benefit of the West as a whole and
would expect the full support of allies, deep U.S.-European rifts
could ensue," it said.

A separate document, also just released, illustrated Mr. Heath's
profound anger toward Mr. Nixon, when the American president failed to
inform the British prime minister he was putting American forces on a
global nuclear alert during the Middle East war.

Mr. Heath went so far as to suggest that Mr. Nixon issued the alert in
an attempt to deflect attention away from Watergate, which was in full
swing in the fall of 1973.

"An American President in the Watergate position apparently prepared
to go to such lengths at a moment's notice without consultation with
his allies," Mr. Heath wrote in the second document, adding that there
was no "military justification" for putting American forces on a
nuclear alert at the time.

The alert was ordered after Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader,
warned that he might send Soviet troops into the Middle East after
Israel crossed the Suez Canal.


The Washington Post (1-1-04) added:

... "The area would have to be securely held probably for a period of
some 10 years," it (the report) concludes.

The (London) Guardian (1-1-04) added:

... "Suspicions about Richard Nixon's administration as it struggled
to shake free from the Watergate scandal, the documents show, were
reinforced when the prime minister was only belatedly informed of a
worldwide nuclear alert declared by the US."

... "A week later, in mid-November, Henry Kissinger, the US secretary
of state, warned that if the Arab oil embargo continued unreasonably
and in definitely, America would have to decide what counter-measures
were necessary. ... "The greatest risk of such confrontations in the
Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where the Iraqis, with Soviet
backing, might be tempted to intervene." NATO allies, including
Britain, would be pressed to provide political and military support."

... "During the Yom Kippur war, in October 1973, Schlesinger had told
Carrington that: "The Americans had paid £14m for facilities in Diego
Garcia and might be expected to be allowed to use them."

"But it was the full-scale nuclear alert - declared on October 25 that
year, supposedly in response to Soviet fleet movements in the eastern
Mediterranean - which most infuriated Ted Heath."

"The prime minister, the documents reveal, only learnt about it from
news agency reports while in the Commons."

"Personally," he told his private secretary Lord Bridges, "I fail to
see how any initiative, threatened or real, by the Soviet leadership
required such a worldwide nuclear alert.

"We have to face the fact that the American action has done immense
harm, both to this country and worldwide."


And the (London) Independent (1-1-04) added:

... With what some critics of the American invasion of Iraq might
consider uncanny prescience, the report added: "This might be executed
without any prior consultation of allies. The objects would presumably
be to teach the Arabs a lesson, to assure by physical control an
adequate supplementary supply of oil for US domestic needs, with a
good quantity over for the needs of selected friends and to enable the
US to rid itself of restraints on its policies arising from the oil
embargo."

... "The document warned that the timing of any invasion of an
oil-producing country would be vital and Europe would argue for US
policy to be focused elsewhere. "They would feel US pressures should
be applied to Israel rather than the Arabs. Since the US would
probably claim to be acting for the benefit of the West and would
expect the support of allies, deep US/European rifts could ensue," it
said."