Posted on 12/31/2003 5:36:17 PM PST by Sub-Driver
1973 US threat to seize oilfields by Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
The United States considered using force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.
It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.
The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.
Warning from US
The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.
We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades British estimate The ambassador quoted Mr Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force." The oil embargo was begun by Arab governments during the Yom Kippur or October war between Israel and Egypt and Syria, which left Israel in a strong position.
It was designed to put pressure on the West to get Israel to make concessions. The embargo was aimed mainly at the United States but many other countries were affected.
The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."
This phrase indicates some knowledge of American plans.
Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.
Airborne troops
The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel.
"We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi," it said.
Two divisions would then be flown in but the report gives a warning that the occupation might have to last 10 years. It would also alienate the Arab world and provoke a confrontation with the Soviet Union, though the JIC did not think that Moscow would use military force itself.
British role expected
There was a potential task for the British. The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge, that the US might want Britain to capture the Abu Dhabi oilfields as some British officers were seconded to the Abu Dhabi defence force.
"For this reason, the Americans might ask the UK to undertake this particular operation," it says.
The prospect of the British military fighting seconded British officers is not gone into.
The assessment reflects on the danger of action by Iraq, whose vice president at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein.
"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait, where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says.
It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."
In a follow up, a Foreign Office official noted: "Lord Carrington [the defence secretary] has suggested that some discreet contingency planning be put in hand"
In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.
Good! Tis as it should be!!!
Happy Noooooooo Year, Dog Gone!!!
and Madrassa Made Madmen.
Basically, anyone who believes that the U.S. had any right to do such a thing is essentially admitting that Pat Buchanan's points about the U.S. as an empire are right on target. And once you've made that leap, there is no reason to believe that the war in Iraq is about anything other than oil.
Oh, puhleeeze. Let's not forget that the Saudis were holding the entire industrialized world hostage to their demands over Israel.
And also, let's remember IT NEVER HAPPENED! A tough threat, perhaps, but may have proved effective.
That is all.
Say what? Would you run that by me again?
You must not have waited in gas lines in 1973. You must not have been in the manufacturing world where it was damned likely that the working world as you knew it was about to implode. You must not have sat and watched as back-stabbing, murdering, Arab potentates tried blackmailing the United States. You must not realize that even today that part of the world has a strangle-hold on us . . . although it's a lot less now than it was a year ago.
Calm down and think, Alberta, our leaders simply made contingency plans. Would you have them do anything less? What if the embargo had gone on . . . and on . . . and on . . . would you have wanted your government to sit on its hands and watch as the American economy went down the toilet?
ANY Administration that allows the U.S. to be held hostage should be impeached en masse.
Actually, from what I've read the Saudi demands over Israel were nothing more than posturing -- to garner support among other Arab countries.
The real issue regarding the "Arab oil embargo" was that the Saudis simply had no interest in selling oil to the U.S. for dollars that were about to lose a substantial portion of their value to inflation over the coming decade -- to pay off the staggering cost of Lyndon Johnson's war.
No fault is to be assigned, as nothing occurred.
It is within the proper conduct of national security affairs, however, to have a contingency plan ready for any eventuality which would threaten dire consequences.
Don't you imagine that a total cut-off of oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would constitute just such an eventuality?
In "exposing" this perfectly reasonable plan, the Beeb is just trying to stir up some more anti-American passions. The Guardian crowd was getting low on their anti-American vitamins, I suppose.
And yet so many of those psame eople really believe that the U.S. would have withered and died on the vine just because of an Arab "oil embargo" that was really nothing more than a dispute over the stability of the U.S. dollar as the base currency for oil trading on the world markets.
P.S. I was too young to remember the 1973 gas lines, but I do remember the "mini gas crisis" of 1979 -- in fact, I made a fortune as a kid (well, it was a fortune to me) selling cookies and lemonade to motorists waiting in the hot sun on a line for the gas station around the corner of my childhood home. God bless the innovative, entrepreneurial American spirit, huh?
Would you have any sources to prove this claim?
Just as the article states . . . the embargo occurred because the Israelis were kicking the hell outta the Arabs and they wanted us to pressure those bad 'ol Jews to play nice.
I'm glad you made a little dough selling lemonade in 1979 . . . I lost $200,000+ in 1973 because of an "oil embargo" you so casually attempt to belittle. I'll be willing to bet my entrepreneurial skills were every bit as good as yours but the deck was stacked against me because of unforeseeable actions taken by Arab Shieks who were getting their asses handed to them on a silver, Israeli plate.
Please provide your sources about the "dollar dispute."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.