Somewhere I heard it mentioned that most countries have reached the age of 14. I wouldn't be that generous – more like seven I'd say. Seven is the age of reason when a child is mature enough to make ethical judgment in the Catholic theological tradition.

In its international policy, the United States has certainly developed the ability to reason if not to act ethically.

The adamant refusal on the part of this country to life the sanctions on Iraq despite objections from China, Russia and France in the U.N. Security Council, press throughout the world as well as numerous religious groups and activists groups at home, are increasingly incomprehensible to some.

The official excuse offered up for the last ten years, that Iraq is danger to the world due to its weapons of mass destruction, is still in place. Those Americans who feel unsafe due to the imminent danger posed by Iraq are not those with whom I would wish to argue. I do, however feel the deepest compassion by anyone so possessed by irrational fears.

There are dangers in the Middle East for sure. There are plenty of arms, most supplied by the United States. Israel's 200 plus nukes pose more danger to the region than the currently pathetic state of Iraq. See Scott Ritter's remarks in this issue of GlobalSpin.

Saved by the Unsavory

In reading the intelligence website, Stratfor, on the subject of Iraq I found some enlightening surprises. One was an article from December 1999 entitled Oil Price Relief Dilemma Courtesy of Iraq? In which it was suggested that the Clinton would turn to Iran or Iraq as a way out of the oil price crisis. And so it happened. In April, the UN Security Council, supposedly in rresponse to growing wordwide agitation about the sanctions, allowed Iraqi oil back on the market by increasing the amount they are allowed to pump. One side effect of which is to lower prices saving the American consumer and economy, or rather saving the Clinton Administration from the wrath of the American voting public.

A couple of things strike me. One is the timing. Funny how the crisis takes place just before the election. A friend of mine suggested that the Bush oil league might have been partially influential in getting the Saudis to raise the prices. Certainly George W. Bush, the young oil scion,would have benefited from the jump as Gore would have been wasted. Could the price war have been part of the election year battle here in the states? Why not? Daddy Bush certainly has connections and lots of pull in the oil world and, interestingly enough, the Clinton Administration has kept Iraqi oil off the market for ten years. Now that it suits them this Administration is doing business with Iraq. What a second! Dealing with that pariah? Not to worry , the sanctions aren't being lifted, just the allotment of oil that Iraqi can put on the market.

Actually keeping Iraq oil as a wild card to pull out as the right time as need demanded may have been foreseen by those in the State Department.

Rumor has it that the United States likes to control the flow of oil on the planet. It is not itself dependent on Middle Eastern oil, importing only one tenth of its supply form that region. But remember the Golden Rule. t Whoever has the (black) gold, rules.

There were other possible responses to the hike in oil prices. The US itself has large untapped reserves but "this well cannot be tapped profitably unless global oil prices rise significantly above current levels". ( ) In other words, use somebody else's first. "And", the article goes on to say, "such a move would require the cooperation of US oil producers, who are also enjoying high oil prices." Oil price hikes are inevitably greeted in the US with much lamentation about how they -those nasty Arabs- are doing it to us again. This is an odd response for two reasons. The first is that the US oil companies make lots of dough to when the prices go up at the expense of the consumer and secondly, the American economy runs on profit. The economy we are trying to export world-wide depends on profit. It seems understandable then that everyone wants a profit.

It was also conceded in the article that "the US faces a variety of limited options. Washington could try to dampen demand – by ratifying the pending Kyoto Protocols, mandating the use of fuel cell technologies, or approving a gas tax increase". Of course, it's more likely to snow in DC in July.

The sudden availability of Iraqi oil dovetails nicely with other events in the Middle East. To quote again "Such a revision of US policy—likely spun as an extension of the currently inactive, oil for food program would not only decrease oil prices, but would also have the important side effects."

Those two effects are: One - the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline. "Washington could use the opportunity to entice Syria into a final settlement to the Middle East peace negotiations." In other words, Syria, which is balking at surrendering control over its water supply from the the Sea of Galilee to Israel, is being offered the revenue from a revitalized Iraq-Syria pipeline as a carrot or substitute. Being financially pressed they may be forced to accept. This would put even more pressure on Palestine to accept a very poor deal. (See Palestine: Reality and Perspectives in the Archives)

A second benefit for the US would be to derail the Iranian-Chinese-French proposal to pump Caspian Sea oil. Despite politically correct elections in Iran, the US maintains sanctions against that country, though this is not popularly known Why? To quote, "…the re-entry of Iran onto the global energy market would torpedo US geo-strategic plans for the Caucasus and Central Asia."

Caspian Sea oil is the hot new version of the old game. Here's what I see. Russia is distracted with the Chechen War, the threat of which keeps Georgia and the Ukraine in our camp.

High oil prices benefit Iran, under sanctions for years,and Russia, in near economic ruin. Iraq's entry onto the market is designed to lower those prices,which besides helping to shoo Gore into the White House, also drives a wedge between Russia and its ally Iraq, and further exacerbates the already tense relationship between Iran and Iraq.

The US could play the Syrian card in the other direction and threaten to withdraw the offer if Syria doesn't cooperate with the "Peace Process" and surrender claim to a shore on the Galilee consistent with its 1967 borders.

This would enable the US to turn to Iran. The Iranians have just recently been intercepting smuggled Iraqi oil, which they previously ignored. Interpreting this behavior as an overture, " the US overture might come in the form of disabling the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline, opening the possibility of making a deal with Iran", instead of with Syria and thereby driving a wedge between those two allies.

Don't take my word for it. Details on all the above mentioned maneuvers and games can be found on articles from Stratfor posted on this webpage. One thing remains clear throughout all the moves and plays and that is the principle of divide and conquer. Countries in the Middle East find themselves in the position of sacrificing one gain for another, one ally for another. Syria cannot have both oil pipeline and water,. anymore than it can amicable relations with both Iran and Iraq. Iraq and Iran are pitted against each other. Iraq is desperate to pump oil after ten years of sanctions while Iran wants to control the flow due to its own limited capacity. A proposed Syrian-Iraqi pipeline clouds the Syrian Iranian alliance and strengthens Israel's hand in the "Peace Process". Russia, also desperate for money, must jeopardize its supportive role with Iraq, whose entry onto the market will lower the price.

To quote again. "The more things change, the more they stay the same." My guess is that two things won't change. The decrepit hospitals of Iraq will continue to be full of children dying from starvation while more SUVs are seen cruising American suburban streets.