Steal The Oil

The West and the Oil Patch

A Plan For Peace

Introduction
As long as the West is pouring trillions of dollars of unearned wealth into hostile (Islamic)
societies, those societies will try to fulfill their religious obligation to dominate the rest of the
world.

What Is The Problem?

Iran is building a nuclear missile capability; supports both Hamas and Hezbollah to create
trouble in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Queda, protected by the Taliban, continues to wage war
against western civilization. Al-Queda is working on WMDs, but Iran is much closer to a
weapon. Some call this a Clash of Civilizations, others call it Jihad. This report is a plan to end
the conflict as peacefully as possible, with an intelligent victory for the West.

We believe that Islamic culture and religion have a lot to do with the roots of the conflict. Muslims
are now or recently have been fighting non-Muslims and other Muslims all over the world, from
the Philippines, to India and Kashmir, in Darfur, within Iraq, in Chechnya, in Bosnia, within
Lebanon, between Israel and a whole host of Arab states and groupings, recently in Algeria, in
Thailand, and so on. Plus, they blow things up in Africa, Bali, Spain, Britain, the US, Kenya,
Tanzania, Argentina, Yemen, Iraq and Israel, to name a few.

Having watched the recent Second Congo War, and experienced two world wars, including the rise
of nuclear weapons, the developed world basically wants to get past the era of major conflicts, if
possible. The growth of the nascent Iranian Empire, an attempt at remaking the ancient Persian
Empires, impedes this progress with the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Islamic teaching is that Muslims must physically dominate and humiliate all other religious
categories, and that force and violence are legitimate in pursuing these goals. In recent centuries,
this hasn’t been possible. Now it's possible.

Islamic basic culture and religion weren’t that different a hundred years ago or even five hundred
years ago. The current surge in conflict is fueled by an enormous influx of unearned oil money,
injected into hostile, undeveloped societies, enabling them to wage various kinds of war and
conflict against the rest of the world. This must stop.
Of course, with over a billion Muslims in the world, there is a great deal of difference and diversity
of opinion and action. Just because Islam says that Muslims may own slaves and must hate
Hindus, it doesn’t mean that all Muslims follow these rules. On September 11th, 2001, most
Muslims didn’t, of course, kill anybody. They are not the problem (nor are they the solution). The
problem is the violence fed and stimulated by oil money, guided by the supremacist doctrines of
the Koran.

In practical terms, al Qaeda, and the government of Iran are the primary problems. The leaders of
al Qaeda are in hiding. But the leaders of Iran are building nuclear weapons, lying about it, and
have been yelling “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” since 1979.

Al-Qaeda apparently gets its money from Osama bin Laden, one of the heirs of the bin Laden
wealth. This wealth comes from construction paid for by Saudi oil money. Western money flows
through Saudi Arabia to Osama bin Laden, and probably others, to al-Qaeda.

Iran has two main uses for nuclear weapons. Either they will follow-up their support of Hezbollah
and Hamas with a nuclear strike against Israel, or they will use the threat of nuclear attack to
achieve hegemony over the oil fields of the Middle East. Or both. Once Iran conquers the oil-rich
nations of the Middle East, the rest of the world will be dependent on them.

However odd it may seem, what we are seeing is the pursuit of a new Iran-based Caliphate over
the Muslim world, with Iran’s Supreme Leader as the Caliph. This would explain the anti-Israel,
anti-American, and anti-Arab aspects of Iranian policy. Nuclear weapons and a consequent oil
monopoly are the tools to do the conquering. This announcement from Iran explains it, somewhat.

The Israelis are worried about the nuclear strike, and the Arab countries are worried about Iranian
domination. Israel has been talking about a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and the Arab states
have re-energized their own nuclear development programs. The point is, that the local countries
that know Iran the best, take this very, very seriously.

The Fog Of Peace

Unfortunately, the picture is cloudy. It is not really clear, for example, why Russia and China have
such a different attitude to Iran than the Europeans and the Arabs. Does it really make sense that
all of Europe has one attitude and both Russia and China have another? Are their fundamental
interests so different? Can it be anything else other than Traditional Rivalry? And is that anything
other than prejudice? Could it be some kind of resource-hunger version of the old Great Game?

China
The perceived self-interests of China are neither simple nor clear, except that China needs to
import oil. We know China is helping the Iranian nuclear program, has contracted to build
refineries in Iran, and protects Iran in the UN Security Council. China has adopted to the US
presence in the Middle East at least to the extent of sharing Iraqi oil development.

One reason China helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons is that China and Pakistan are both
involved in territorial disputes with India. China has proliferated nuclear technology to Algeria,
Saddam’s Iraq, South Africa, and Argentina as well. Nuclear proliferation is clearly a policy choice
made decades ago by the Chinese leadership.
If China is as mercantilist as they seem, the obvious proposal would be to get Chinese cooperation
in return for a share of the oil. Are China and the US bargaining over Iranian oil? Is China asking
too high a price for cooperation?

China is competing with the West for Mideastern oil, fights Islamism in its western provinces, and
may hope to capture Iranian oil away from Western markets.

Russia
Russia, unlike China, is an oil-exporting nation that actually competes with Iran in the world
energy markets, exporting more oil and gas than Iran. Historically, the Russians have wanted to
control Iranian territory. Currently, Russia sells weapons and other systems to Iran, and protects
Iran in the Security Council. It it worth remembering that Russia sold Saddam Hussein some
bogus anti-aircraft weapons in the waning days of the Saddam regime.

Russia is in the process of selling the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran, but the deal is continually
stopping and starting. The US and Russia are bargaining over this vigorously; Parts of the
discussion are public and high-profile. If Russia’s interests are only financial, then whatever Russia
sells to Iran, it would also sell (secretly) to the US, so the US Air Force could practice on it.

As in the Chinese case, Russia might be expected to be cooperative in return for consideration. In
the long run Russia might be more imperialistic than Iran.

The prospect of the three great powers dining on the bones of Iran may a bit too much realpolitik
for our taste, but it has the virtue of avoiding nuclear war, which tastes even worse.

Russia and China, Together?

Russia and China used to be the two great Communist powers, China originally got its nuclear
technology from the USSR. It is not totally impossible for them to still be working together.

More likely, they make a good profit in hard currency from selling armaments and nuclear
equipment around the world, including Iran, and that would diminish under a world order more
peaceful than the present. Russia, however, makes more money from exporting energy than
technologies. We can guess they’d like this to change.

Rising oil and gas prices benefit Russia, but hurt China. Nevertheless, both countries are selling
gasoline to Iran, ignoring the recent sanctions placed on Iran by Europe and the US. See this LA
Times article.

Iran
The overall perspective of this blog is that Iran intends using nuclear weapons for extortion or
war, to implement its national and/or Islamic goals, most probably a wide-ranging Caliphate
based in Iran. Islamic goals, however, sometimes include martyrdom. To be thorough, we should
also consider other possibilities.

If the sole purpose of the Iranian Revolution were regional hegemony, the high level of hostility
towards the West would not exist. The previous ruler of Iran, the Shah, got US cooperation on a
wide array of issues and there is every reason for the Iranian Revolution to wish for that same
level of friendliness. Iran's leaders appear to be motivated more by anger than by straightforward
economic interests. It's very expensive to make enemies of your customers; the slogan of "Death
to America", and global support of terrorism, are good ways to change a strong friendship into a
long war. If Iran had been close friends with the US, Saddam would not have dared to attack Iran
in 1980, and a million lives would have been saved. Iran lost more than a quarter million human
souls in the Iran-Iraq war, possibly as many as half a million.

Iran’s ruling clique could be afflicted with a paranoid group-think that has persuaded them they
really have enemies around every corner. Paranoids should not be allowed to have nuclear
weapons.

Iran’s leaders could be even crazier than we think, and have no coherent intentions whatever.

The series of crises clearly has the effect of raising oil prices. Perhaps Iran is only trying to make a
profit from the turmoil. A stern regime of sanctions would expose this plan, as the costs to Iran
escalate.

The Iranian regime may have decided to shore up its domestic popularity by raising the specter of
war and mendacious global enemies.

There is no rational explanation for Iran’s insistence on trying to persuade the world, including
Germany and Israel, that the holocaust did not occur. Unless perhaps they see Israel as a creation
of the Holocaust, and wishing Israel to go away, they hope that dissuading the world of the
Holocaust would be a step to dissolving Israel. This is so far-fetched that it cannot be called
rational.

Iranian Competence

Iran seems to be having trouble getting the uranium refinement to work. They could be lying
about this. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is also a tunnel engineer. Who knows what lies
undetected under the hills and mountains of Iran? Ironically, hiding nuclear facilities is a good way
to get a lot of global attention.

Iran is working hard at developing the ability to create highly enriched uranium. For example they
are practicing techniques to refine uranium more effectively to the higher concentrations needed
for nuclear weapons.

Iranian Theology

Surprisingly, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam.
That is, nuclear weapons are haram. We must ask again what the ballistic missiles are for. Even if
nuclear weapons are forbidden, they are just a fatwa away.

Deception, known in Islam as Taqiyya, is permitted to Muslims, especially when under threat. Iran
always claims to be under threat.

Western Sabotage

It has been suggested that the US or other western power has been somehow been putting sand
in Iran's gears. If this could go on indefinitely, and intelligence on its effectiveness were reliable,
additional military action might never be required.
Western Nuclear Intelligence Gathering
The US has been working on detecting nuclear facilities in foreign countries at least since the first
American spy plane flew over the USSR in the 1950′s. This being the case, the US misreading of
Saddam’s nuclear posture is even more puzzling. US technical intelligence abilities might be poor
indeed.

While the elements of nuclear espionage are secret, an indirect look at the dimensions of the
effort to reverse engineer enemy electronics is available. It exists in the history of espionage
against Nazi Germany and the USSR. See the video The Secret History of Silicon Valley, for more
information. There several versions of this fascinating talk by Steve Blank on the web. One of the
interesting points is that satellites and overflights publicly described as photo missions were often
radar survey missions with recording radar receivers. We can easily guess that some of the
missions over the USSR were analyzing patterns of radioactivity.

Another analogy can be seen in the development of medical imaging technologies in the last 50
years. MRIs, CAT scans, and other devices enable a deep look that was not possible before.
Similar improvements occurred in the geologic search for oil, side-looking sonar and radar, and
multi-mirror technologies for astronomical telescopes.

A look at the technologies used to prevent nuclear smuggling is another indirect view. This Los
Alamos site has some supporting information. As does this one on proliferation. This article by the
FAS describes some technologies in use.

If the US has only murky information on Iranian nuclear facilities, then a nation-wide approach,
such as confiscating the oil fields, would be even more appropriate. A pinpoint approach, such as
smart bombs at night, or sabotage, can not be depended on to reach the right places. This map of
Iranian nuclear sites hints at an extensive information-gathering operation.

What Caused the "Clash"?

The term Clash of Civilizations, coined by Bernard Lewis and discussed at length by Samuel
Huntington, is often used to describe the conflict between the West and reactionary Islam (also
called the Jihadis). While the phrase is disliked by some, we all know what it refers to.

Why is there a clash between all or parts of Islam and the West? How did it start?

Right after the creation of Islam, in the 600′s, it expanded, by force, into Egypt, which was partly
Christian, ruled by the Byzantines. Many years later, Christian Europe launched the Crusades
which recaptured some territory. Is this the source of the hostility? There is a lot of history, and
many wars and empires over many centuries.

More recently, Napoleon conquered Egypt in 1798, after he lost to the British at Waterloo, Egypt
became a British colony. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, in Egypt, when the British
were dominant. Since the Muslim Brotherhood is a very influential Islamist organization, some say
the Clash is the result of Imperialism.

Islamic law provides that Islam must spread throughout the world and subdue all other religions.
Conversion to Islam by force is officially permitted against idol worshipers; sometimes it happens
to Jews and Christians. Until the world is converted to Islam, Muslims say the world is divided into
the House of Islam and the House of War. This is obviously an important part of the Clash. But
these rules were in effect for many hundreds of years. Why did the Clash erupt now?
The success of the West has caused western secular culture to be very attractive to Muslims, yet
even the robust secularization of Turkey has run into significant Islamist opposition, and economic
development in the Muslim countries has been disappointing. Is the lack of development spurring
radicalization and Jihad? Is it the unemployment? Envy?

There are many conflicts with the Muslim societies: the Indians are fighting the Pakistanis over
Kashmir, many Arabs are fighting the Israelis, who have also fought the Palestinians and are
arguing with Iran, the Shiite often fight the Sunni, the Kurds are fighting the Turks, the Sudanese
are killing the people of Darfur, the Iranians are fighting their government, Iraq fought Iran,
Jordan fought Syria, the Lebanese are fighting each other, Algeria had several wars, and al-Qaeda
is fighting nearly everybody. Are these conflicts the result or are they the cause? The results of
imperialism or Islamic culture, or the cause of anti-Western feeling or Antisemitism?

Do we really need to tie this down, or do we just need to know how to handle it? Maybe they’re
right. Maybe we’re just a bunch of butt-heads and they really ought to knock us off. For their
good, if not ours. Want to let them?

Poor countries do not make world-class trouble. Money, or military aid, must be made available to
them first. Egypt got armaments from the USSR in the 1960′s and 1970′s. Saddam Hussein of
Iraq used his oil money to buy arms from the USSR and Europe. The Ayatollahs of Iran buy from
all over. There are probably hotheads in the poor countries like Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Bhutan,
and so on who would love to start a fight with the US, or organize their very own terrorist
movement. But they can’t afford to. And that is the kernel of the solution.

If Iran were as poor as Burundi, they would not have had a nuclear warhead program, we would
not be concerned about what sort of warheads they’re putting on their missiles (which they would
not have), we would not know the name of their leader (Quick, whose running Burundi? Chad?
Comoros?) and we would not be trying to figure out if we need to bomb the nuclear plants (which
they would not have).

Fortunately, this solution is not as radical as it sounds. The ecological Green movement in the
west has been clamoring to end the consumption of fossil fuels. If we ever figure out how to do
this, the oil exporters will be bankrupt, anyway. So it turns out we’re all in favor of bankrupting
the oil exporters.

Also, we can take the money saved by not paying for oil and just give it to Burundi, Chad, and the
other poor countries. Call it a peace dividend.

As long as the industrialized West, and China, are dumping trillions of dollars and euros on the
world, some of the recipients are going to try to fulfill their old dreams of world conquest. Or
make new dreams. Large wars are caused by prosperity, not by poverty.

Why Is The Mideast Oil Subsidy Taboo?

Even a casual glance at history shows that any empire worth its salt would simply annex the oil
fields and any other critical resources by force. The “Imperialistic” US, and modern Europe, refuse
to do anything of the kind. Why is that?

One would think that at least one of the political parties or movements would have come up with,
and supported, the simple observation that it would be easier and cheaper to simply take the oil,
rather than pay endless trillions of euros and dollars, and that paying such huge amounts will
create new world forces that can turn around and bite us.
Possible Reasons for the Taboo
One can suppose an obsession with private property (respect for foreign property, or oil company
profits), or a desire to be popular with the poor nations, might have something to do with it.

Perhaps the thought was that history had ended with the Second World War, and from here on
out there wouldn’t be any real conflicts, so it didn't matter. But that Cold War thing…

Maybe the Communists tricked the West into denying that we’re “Imperialists” and now we’re
mentally stuck, and can’t think outside the box. Or perhaps the ideologies from Post Structuralism
to Christianity have given us self-images that are Just Too Darn Nice. Do we need to see
ourselves as better than others? Better than makes sense?

Cynics could propose that the Saudis have been bribing all the US Presidents, starting with FDR.
Bill Clinton and George W Bush are close to the Saudis; Obama bowed to them. They’re all very
chummy. But this would not explain the lack of minor party interest in the matter.

Decades ago, the location of the world’s oil fields was relatively murky, and it was not clear how
much would have to be conquered. Also, the people of the various oil patches seemed rather
harmless back then, and throwing some money their way must have seemed like the right thing
to do. The US has a history of anti-imperialism, Islam was not understood in the West. The US, at
least, was rich; why bother?

To some people, money, in any form, is dirty. Perhaps it’s some kind of neurosis? But it’s hard to
ascribe chrematophobia (fear of money) to the US or to Europe.

One idea we can drop right away: It isn’t discussed because it’s obviously a bad idea. Lots of
terrible ideas are proposed all the time. Some of these bad ideas become laws. Understanding the
connection between oil and weapons is a good idea.

The Vanilla Answer

The American Ideal: Promoting of values such as democracy and open and free society, the rule
of law, freedom of information, combating corruption, respect for private property. Free Trade and
an Open Door. And perhaps most importantly, the idea, often subliminal, that Prosperity Brings
Peace, that the “Root cause” of war is poverty. So let’s make everybody prosperous and they’ll
turn out like Europe after the Marshall Plan. They say that Democracies don’t go to war with one
another; so let’s make the whole world democratic.

We think these ideas are dead but not buried, and should go to the same cemetery that holds the
“McDonald’s Theory of World Peace”.

Making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic has not proved to be a slam dunk, a piece of cake, or a
walk in the park. The US may be helping Afghanistan the way it helped Vietnam. Even if it all
turns out rosy, how often can the US afford to do this?

Bottom Line: None of the answers, especially the vanilla answer, explain the taboo.
Find Out For Sure
There seems to be only one way to solve the puzzle. Agitate for a takeover of the oil fields by the
US military, and see what sort of push-back develops, and from who. This could tell us where the
problem originates. Hopefully, this report will help in that endeavor.

Stop Funding Both Sides

The oil rich nations around the Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf) are a fount of world
conflict and a threat of nuclear war. There is no reason for the West to keep on funding them.

Everything seems to extend the conflict, nothing seems to end it. The roots of the conflict are in
the difference between the Islamic cultures and the West, but the motor is the money. What to
do? Give peace a chance? Nuke ‘em all? Convert to Islam? Something else?

How Much Money Is A Trillion Dollars?

How much oil money is that, anyway?

Saudi Arabia: From a peak of $281.4 billion in 2008, Saudi Arabia’s oil revenues will dive to
nearly $134.2 billion in 2009 before rebounding to around $164 billion in 2010, the Saudi
American Bank (Samba) said in a study.

Iran: In 2007 Iran’s estimated income from exports was US$76.5 billion (free on board—f.o.b.),
85 percent of which came from petroleum and natural gas, which ends up at $65 billion for oil and
gas.

The CIA says Iran exports 2.8 million bbl/day of oil. It also says Saudi Arabia exports 8.2 million
bbl/day.

So, to compare the 2 countries; at $50/bbl, that would be 51.1 billion dollars a year for Iran, and
149.7 billion dollars a year for Saudi Arabia. But as we saw above, the price is not stable at
$50/bbl. You can see the current oil price at oil-price.net, or at Bloomberg.com.

OPEC: In 2008 OPEC got over a trillion dollars for gas and oil, a banner year. See OPEC’s
Annual Statistical Bulletin for 2008. How much trouble could you make with a trillion dollars, if you
wanted to?
Iran: Nuclear Weapons Or Electricity?

Iran used to claim that it’s nuclear development was purely for the
generation of electricity. If you’re not sure if Iran is building the capacity for nuclear war, take a
look at this article from Defense Update. As it says:

“Iran has successfully test-fired a Sajjil-2 medium-range surface-to-surface missile, a solid-fueled

missile developed in Iran…”

Sejjil missile on a military transporter for quick launch. Does this look peaceful?

Solid fuel missiles are best for military work, but are not as useful for launching satellites, where
liquid fuel rockets are usually preferred. Liquid fuel provides more thrust (specific impulse) but
usually takes a lot longer to set up. Solid fuel rockets can be launched on a moments notice, a
requirement for the military, but not for launching satellites. Solid fuel for rockets is described
further on this Astronautix page. The Iranian Shahab missile is a liquid fueled ballistic missile,
designed for as quick launch as possible, but still requiring liquid oxygen, which is not as storable
as the kerosene fuel. The Shahab is an updated version of the North Korean Nodong missile, a
surface-to-surface weapon, which is, in turn, an update of the Soviet SCUD. Iran’s Shahab missile
force is being supplemented by solid fuel missiles, including the Sajjil and Sajjil-2. And there are
also reports of a new solid-fuel first stage for the Iranian Shahab.

More information on Iran’s Sajjil family can be found in this Wikipedia article, and this IISS page.
Note that ”Ahmadinejad claims the missile landed precisely on target“. Only military missiles even
have targets.

The payload the Sajjil can deliver is estimated at about a ton, roughly the same as the Scuds that
Saddam used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, although the Sajjil has longer range. Those Scuds,
which did not have WMD warheads, proved to be of no strategic importance whatever. At the size
and cost of a Sajjil, or Shahab, it only makes sense to load them with WMDs, not regular high
explosives. The WMDs that Iran is known to be building are nuclear warheads. Iran’s nuclear
program must include warheads, otherwise, the missiles are useless for both offense and defense.

If Iran has stopped development on warheads, it’s probably because they’re done, or they’ve run
into a snag, or China has stepped in to help (as they did with Pakistan), or they were frightened
by the US intervention in Iraq in 2003. But missiles require warheads. And Iran has plenty of
ballistic missiles, and is building more.

Claiming that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is defensive is just illogical. Is there a country that
wants to attack Iran, but is waiting until after it develops nuclear weapons? The Iranian regime
has been in power since 1979 and it’s so-called enemies have had over 30 years to organize their
attacks. What’s been holding them back? Nobody is trying to attack Iran; The missiles and the
warheads must be for offense.

These missiles aren’t being made to generate electricity.

So What Exactly Is The Plan?

Unless peace breaks out, and the government of Iran is replaced by something less hateful, action
against Iran is going to be needed. Perhaps a change of the Ayatollah regime is all that is needed
to change the world scene. This is not to say the other oil-exporting countries do not cause
trouble, but Iran is clearly the worst. Saudi Arabian money, for example is the funding source of al
Qaeda, even though the cash seems not to be coming from the government.

Assuming, as is likely, that sanctions fail (have sanctions ever really worked?), the US Air Force
can disable Iran’s nuclear facilities, military installations, warships, and so on. But then what? Will
Iran engage the US in a series of confrontations? As long as the hostile Iranian leadership has a
huge source of income, there will be conflict.

The fundamental observation is that the poor countries of the world, such as Burundi, Comoros,
and Djibouti, do not make trouble on a world scale. But underdeveloped countries with significant
oil revenues, however, are involved in all sorts of world disruption: Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait,
and Saudi Arabia regularly make the news as aggressors or targets.

If the oil-rich nations were as poor as Djibouti, they would not be waging large wars, building
nuclear weapons, or testing ballistic missiles.

But what about North Korea and Pakistan?

These countries are not rich, yet they have some nuclear weapons capability. In both cases, they
received significant help from outside, mainly China, with Saudi Arabia helping Pakistan
financially. Perhaps the main culprit in all cases is China, they are helping Iran, after all. Iran is
not merely a Chinese proxy, but China does seem to be bent on making things worse.
So What Should Be Done?

After knocking down Iran’s military capabilities, keep them

down by impoverishing the country. Liberate the oil fields in the name of humanity, preventing
the Iranian dictatorship from obtaining any oil money whatever.

Note that the ecological and global warming movements have already endorsed this policy
implicitly, by advocating the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

It is indeed fortunate that for Iran specifically, and the Middle East in general, the oil fields are
located in lightly populated areas. Very few people need to be killed. The number of lives saved by
preventing nuclear war would be in the millions. For an advanced military such as the US, the oil
fields are easy to defend, once captured.

Why Would This Be Different Than Iraq?

The US invasion of Iraq was designed to find the WMDs, take down Saddam, and install
democracy. This was a tall order, poorly managed. They never found any WMDs, and democracy
is still in issue. Saddam, however, is still quite dead.

One of the reasons the invasion of Iraq was difficult was that the Iraqis began killing each other in
a civil war; some were Sunni and others were Shiite, with many different clans. This does not
apply to Iran, which is overwhelmingly Shiite.

For hostile, oil-exporting countries such as Iran, an easier solution would be to leave that
miserable government in place in Tehran, but seize the oil fields. This would eliminate the funding
behind their nuclear warhead and missile program, and render Iran harmless. The oil fields are
lightly populated, and conveniently near the coast, so very few people have to die. Millions of lives
could be saved by preventing nuclear war. Hopefully, only part of Iran would need to be invaded.
Or perhaps Iran’s leaders will read this report and change their whole outlook for the better,
bringing about an era of world peace.

The goal in Iraq was nation-building. We suggest doing the opposite, but in a less lethal way.

Unlike 2003, the various European and Saudi governments now agree that Iran is working on
nuclear weapons; the evidence is all around. For example, see this article in Spiegel Online.

If done well, other Muslim countries would no longer need to get nuclear weapons just to defend
themselves, and nuclear proliferation would be tremendously slowed. This would make a nuclear-
free world much closer than it is now.
The Oil Fields Are Conveniently Near the Coasts
If you study this map , you’ll see that the large oil fields of Iran and Saudi Arabia are located
conveniently near the Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf). There are large oil fields in Iran,
under the Gulf itself, and in Saudi Arabia. They’re all part of the same oil patch.

It is also interesting that there are very few maps of oil field locations on the web .

Coincidentally, CENTCOM commands the 5th fleet, whose amphibious capabilities currently include
the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), whose flagship is the USS Bataan. I’ll bet these guys
have better maps of the Persian Gulf, and it’s oil fields, than we do. This is an image of the
Persian Gulf from outer space:

For more detail, see this fascinating, 3 megabytes version of that same satellite photo you see at
left. Iran has a rougher territory than Saudi Arabia. Yet over two thirds of the world’s oil reserve is
in this photo, under the ground. Mostly in Saudi Arabia, south of the Gulf.
So What Next, You Ask?
An Israel-only approach does not permit the lasting peace outlined in this report. The armed
forces of Israel cannot take and hold significant territory in Iran. Only the US can do that. Only
the US air force can supply the close air support needed to hold oil fields against the large ground
forces Iran can muster. Iran's military cannot put up enough air power, artillery, tanks or
conventional missiles to push back the US. But Iran has a large suicide force in the Basij, plus
uniformed infantry. To persuade these ground forces to hold back, significant air support is
required; probably in the form of cluster bombs. While there is no way to predict how many
casualties would needed to persuade Iran to stop a ground assault, history and common sense
indicate that eventually they will.

Diplomacy and sanctions are to be much preferred over any kind warfare, of course. But the US
military should prepare to take and hold a great proportion of Iran's oil fields for an indefinite
period.

We can anticipate that Iran would sabotage the wells to the extent they can; as Saddam Hussein
did in 1991. Possibly, they will do a better job of it.

Inevitably, the US would be accused of "Stealing the Oil", hence the inflammatory title of this
report. The obvious counters to that are giving any oil revenue away, or simply using the money
to good purpose at home.

The analysis presented here should give new impetus to the search for alternative energy
technologies; obsoleting petroleum will have tremendous benefits for world peace.