The U.S did not attack Iraq for oil, because it would have been far cheaper overall for the statecraft of the U.S to maintain relations with a monster that they created – few Iraqi’s like Saddam and the rate of extracting crude oil from the ground in an area mired in political instability coupled with costs of a war that the U.S has had to fight on a deficit economy refutes the necessity of such a claim, from Greenspan especially who is notorious for saying thing and doing another.. Rather, it was the Euro for Oil programme which threatened the economic hegemony of the U.S who has a currency pretty much secured on their geo-strategic access to oil, lending not to their military presence but to their close alliances with the GCC countries who have already secured a favorable status in the Middle East for Israel. Whilst it would not correct to blow the influence of Israel as an entity out of proportion, it would be correct and true to fact to emphasis the necessity of securing a foot in the Middle East such as Israel, to destabilize a continent who on emerging from colonialism, were subject to further military occupations, this in a more permanent way.
There is no doubt that the Israeli are capable of maintaining a presence in the Middle East through American financing only, this because it divides the Middle East and overly exaggerates the presence of U.S alliances, such as the Arabs, who are ethnically comprised only of the Saudi and the Yemeni.The Levant (Syria, Lebanon etc) The Caspian and Persian elements, the Iraqis too are a different ethnicity….