Eustace Mullins – The Secret of Iraq, the Mosul to Haifa oil pipeline

Published on March 7, 2017

Eustace Mullins radio interview with Officer Jack McLamb, August 16, 2005. Eustace Mullins’ explains his article ‘The Secret of Iraq, and discloses the oil pipeline from Mosul, Iraq to Haifa, Israel.

Video courtesy of TheRapeOfJustice

Editor’s note:  This video has been mirrored for safe keeping.

This is the article by Hoonan Peimani mentioned in the video above:

An Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, has reported that Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel’s northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements.

According to the daily, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would reduce the country’s cost of oil imports. This is currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia. There would also be a strategic justification for the project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in Israel’s close proximity would increase its fuel security and would address its major handicap, that is, its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away suppliers. While living in the oil-rich Middle East, the Israelis cannot count on regional oil exporters because of the existing Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran, which was on friendly terms with Israel, provided its oil requirements. That arrangement ended in 1979 when the new Iranian revolutionary regime cut ties with Israel.

Paritzky has requested an assessment of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline’s current state, which ceased to operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it has not been in use for more than half a century. However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and Israel, through which the pipeline passes.

Iraqi consent will be out of the question as long as the current regime of Saddam Hussein is in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime, if ever it comes to power, will still require Syria’s consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel’s continued occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel’s mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil.

Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.

Oil pipelines are a highly vulnerable means of exporting oil, requiring a predictable long-term reliability of the countries through which they pass. Knowing this, the Israelis can only begin their technical assessment of the pipeline once they are convinced that the existing political barriers can be overcome. This requires new regimes in Baghdad and Damascus.

According to the Israeli minister, the United States will back his project since the pipeline would bring Iraqi oil directly from Iraq to the Mediterranean. In such a case, the Americans could bypass the Persian Gulf for their imported Iraqi oil, while having secured access to the world’s second-largest oil reserves. Especially since the early 1990s, they have repeatedly expressed their concern about over-reliance on the Persian Gulf for their oil imports, which contains more than 60 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Given the concentration of the major oil exporters in that region, its instability could interrupt or completely stop the flow of oil by oil tankers, with a consequent major impact on the US economy, as it is so dependent on oil.

To decrease their vulnerability to such a worst-case scenario, the Americans have sought to diversify their oil suppliers. Apart from the Caspian oil-exporters, they have resorted to non-OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) African countries (Chad and Angola), whose resources are also closer to the United States than those of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. However, these alternative suppliers could only allay the US fear for a while, given the small size of their oil deposits. Thus, in the long run, the US will have to import heavily from the Persian Gulf region, where existing oil reserves will outlast those of other regions, and while some of its oil-rich countries, such as Iran, keep finding new oilfields.

Given this situation, finding reliable alternative export routes and means to sea routes and oil tankers for Persian Gulf oil exports is the long-term solution for the Americans requiring an increasing amount of imported oil. In this regard, land-based pipelines to carry oil to easily accessible warm-water open seas such as the Mediterranean would be a suitable option. A fully operational Mosul-Haifa pipeline could address that US problem, while satisfying Israel’s oil requirements at same time.

The Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of the “coalition of the willing” – the United States and the United Kingdom – have rejected oil as a motivation for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the contrary.

Against this background, the US government’s growing anti-Syrian rhetoric, including accusing Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq, may well be the initial stage toward the expansion of the war to Syria. If this happens, it could lead to a regime change there to serve various purposes, including the cooperation of Syria in future oil exports via the Mosul-Haifa pipeline.


Dr. Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.

Edited on Tue Feb-15-05 11:28 PM by indigobusiness
If you don’t know Eustace Mullins, he is an amazing figure in history (protege’ of Ezra Pound, etc). His story is unique and astonishing. The Iraq article follows this short bio.

A Short Biography
Watch for Eustace Mullins’ autobiography, coming early 2005.After forty years of continuous activity in the American conservative movement, Eustace Mullins has garnered an impressive number of firsts – the first writer to have a book burned in Europe since World War II – the first person to be fired from the staff of the Library of Congress for political reasons – and the first writer to detail the history of our Federal Reserve System.A native Virginian, Eustace Mullins is a direct descendant of William Mullins (Guillaume Molines), who wrote the Mayflower Compact, a governmental code written at the behest of the Mayflower settlers, and the first governing code composed in the new world. He served thiry-eight months in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, and subsequently studied at Washington & Lee University, Ohio State University, The University of North Dakota, New York University, Escuela des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C. His groundbreaking work was largely the result of a fortuitous circumstance: he became, successively, the protege of Ezra Pound, the leading literary force of the twentieth century; George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, and the most widely quoted journalist in Washington; and H.L. Hunt, the anti-Communist entrepreneur. After Ezra Pound’s passing, he founded the Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, which Carries on Pound’s important work in literature and economics.

Eustace Mullins

The secret of our involvement in Iraq is no secret. This area has been known from 600,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C. as a Paleolithic era country. We cowered in terror before the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass delusion, a la Harry Houdini and its threat of imminent nuclear annihilation, only to find, on inventing Iraq in a desperate attempt to stave off destruction, that its present leader, Saddam Hussein, had been a CIA asset for the past forty years, with his handlers numbering both Bush pere at fils, and that his nuclear capability had been destroyed years ago by Israeli assaults using American planes AND BOMBS, etc. Did we heave a sigh of relief upon learning this news? No, we were more terrified than ever, as we entered the defining Age of America, the Age of Terror, under which we labor today.

Now Iowa farm youths are dying in unarmored pleasure vehicles manufactured by General Motors, the infamous Hummers. They are dying in Babylon, a name unfamiliar to most Americans, because Dan Rather tells us it is Bagdad, a modern version of the notorious Whore of Babylon.

Has anyone in Washington ever heard of the Sumerian Empire? The Assyrian Empire? Certainly none of the 3800 overpaid, highly trained “investigative reporters” downing their martinis and New York strip steaks at the National Press Club ever heard of these empires. They have come and gone. Babylon-Bagdad itself veered into oblivion in 2800 B.C. after some three thousand years of prominence. Why are Americans dying in a city which reached its peak three thousand years ago? Answer anyone, anyone. It is because we are embroiled in World War III, stupid. A new crusade from the 12th century, in which Christians and Muslims rush like lemmings into mutual destruction, while the instigators wait on the sidelines, enjoying the gladiators in our modern Coliseum, the television set.

Two names are never mentioned in contemporary accounts of this imbroglio–Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan, yet they account for the entire story. You can throw in the ubiquitous FDR and Wilson’s mentor, Colonel House, and you have it all. Why was Ronald Reagan accorded a Pharoah’s funeral when he passed away recently? He was honored as the maestro of World War III, which he arranged during his Presidency. Reagan is revered for his monumental feat in ending the Communist “threat”, which he did by a simple act-he cut off the flow of cash from the taxpayers of the United States, an unending stream which had been launched by Woodrow Wilson in 1917, and which ended in 1989, aided by Senator Joe McCarthy’s astounding discovery that the world headquarters of Communism was not in Moscow, as we had been taught since childhood, but in Washington, D.C., the headquarters of our fake money, the Federal Reserve System. When Joe began to rattle the branches, the money tree stopped its manna, and the dreaded Soviet empire, unable to survive for a single day on its own, quickly joined the Sumerians and Assyrians on the dust heap of history.

This should be enough of a history lesson for one session, but I will go a bit further. How did the Hollywood sycophant, Ronald Reagan, arrange World War III? He was an actor, all of whose scripts were carefully written for him. And so was this one. When he was elected President in 1980, a day of despair for the doomsayers, the same ones who greeted Bush’s re-election as the end of this world, which they would celebrate by moving to Canada or Australia. Reagan made his triumphant entry into Washington, accompanied by a carefully selected and trained “advisors” who had been recruited from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University…its full name is the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace, I am the only historian who has ever accounted for its miraculous growth as THE think tank for all think tanks. After World War I, the Rothschilds’ realized that someone might actually find out how World War I made its unexplained appearance on the world scene. These clever bankers hired 400 recently discharged U.S. Army Officers to travel around Europe, carefully gathering up all documents which might reveal their complicity in the war. These papers are stored at Stanford University. The name of the think tank had no connection with J. Edgar Hoover, but with the sainted former President, who was revered in Russia as the saviour of Communism, with Russian Relief in 1921, and again in subsequent relief efforts. Because of thie revealing connection, a quickly manufactured story, which became gospel, claimed that he was a fanatical anti-Communist, which the gullible believe today.

Source:  The Secret of Iraq—(by Eustace Mullins)

See also:  The Curse of Canaan by Eustace Mullins free book

AIPAC Seeks to Imprison Americans for Opposition to Israel

No, The Bible Doesn’t Command We “Stand With Israel”

The US Military Knows Israel Did 9/11


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.