Transcript:In one of my most elaborate undercover operations for BBC Newsnight, I got my hands on the secret plans for the invasion. Nope, not Trump’s attack on Iran. It was 2004 when I conned the Heritage Foundation and a James Baker operative into handing over the elaborate 323-page plan to keep the oil flowing from Iraq. The plan was secretly drafted BEFORE George W. Bush invaded. In 2004, The State Department had told me that no plan existed for handling Iraq’s oil. I didn’t buy it. If we invaded California, we’d certainly have a plan for oranges and action films. With lots of luck, with lots of bluff and BS, I got my hands on the confidential scheme. Here it was, the smash-and-grab plan for Iraq’s oil written in secret at the direction of oil industry bigshots headed by Baker, Bush Sr’s Secretary of State who, as a lawyer, represented Exxon and the Saudi monarchy. At the time, when I reported it on BBC, it was a scandal. (Correction: the story was front-page news everywhere BUT the USA where it was buried.)I’m only bringing up 20-year-old history to tell you that, while Bush’s hidden plan for the oil fields of Iraq evidenced greedy secret scheming to grab Iraq’s oil industry, at least we could say this: EVEN GEORGE BUSH HAD A PLAN. So no, I have not uncovered Trump’s secret plans for the invasion of Iran, or his plan to protect the world’s oil supply, BECAUSE TRUMP HAS NO PLAN. Even the Wall Street Journal, a loud booster of the attack on Iran, was shocked that our trillion-dollar defense and intelligence apparatus did not seem to know that the choke point at the Strait of Hormuz would seize the world’s economy by the throat. In fact, before Bush invaded Iraq, he had TWO plans. One was 101 pages long drafted by neo-cons in the Defense Department (with help from the Heritage Foundation) to “privatize” (that is, seize) Iraq’s oil fields. Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for getting that document and sharing it with me. However, oil companies were furiously opposed to seizing Iraq’s oil, so the oil men drafted a 323-page counter-plan. And what a plan it was. The State Department and Big Oil were pushing for what they called, “an invasion disguised as a coup,” with one of Saddam Hussein’s generals taking over. The 101st Airborne would be in and out in three days. In fact, the State Department had a secret hugger-mugger in Walnut Creek, California, where, as OPEC consultant Falah Aljibury told me, he “auditioned” several of Saddam’s generals to act as replacement dictator. Amazingly, once I got the oil industry plan, I reviewed it with Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who had been appointed, under pressure from the oil industry, by Bush to take charge of Iraq’s oil fields. Carroll slammed the neo-con claim that “privatization [of Iraq’s oil] is a no-brainer.” Carroll said, “it would only be thought about by someone with no brains.”Why did Shell and Exxon NOT want Iraq’s oil fields? Because, as a Saudi official explained to me, that would kick Iraq out of OPEC and, indeed, the OPEC cartel’s power would be crushed. The Texas oil bosses knew: We don’t want Iraq’s oil, we want Iraq to stay in OPEC to LIMIT Iraq’s production and keep the price of oil at 50 dollars+ a barrel. Oil corporations don’t want oil, they want PROFITS. Keeping most of Iraq’s oil in the ground per direction of OPEC, keeps prices high. Those oil fields today remain, technically, in the hands of Iraqis. Oil companies work by “Production Sharing Agreements” which give Big Oil the profits without the headache of ownership and keeps the OPEC cartel sitting happily on its spigots. But Iran is different. I can’t find the secret plans for Trump’s attack on Iran because it seems there are none. It seems that “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth and our massive intelligence agencies haven’t looked at Google Maps. I thought these guys read the Bible, in which Jesus clearly said, “It is as difficult for a rich man to get into heaven as it is to get an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz.” I may not have that quote exactly, but you know what I mean. Trump is right, that the war is nearly over. Because the Ayatollahs have won. While we can revel in Trump’s nose being rubbed in the vomit of his own self-created defeat, let us not forget that it is the people of Iran who are paying the price of Trump’s hubris, of Netanyahu’s fever dreams of Iranians rising up against their mullah masters. The Guardian reports that, this year, Iran gunned down over 30,000 of its own citizens, unarmed, nearly ten times the number of Americans killed on September 11, 2001. Now that Trump and Hegseth have discovered the Strait of Hormuz, they must realize they are checkmated. And that they will sell out the Iranian people to the untender mercies of the religious fascists in return for some baloney deal to limit Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Uncovering Dubya Bush’s plan for Iraq’s oil, the auditions for a new dictator, the oil industry, Saudi and OPEC control over Iraq’s oil output made me sick at heart. But the only thing more evil than a secret plan is to have no plan at all. I am sick when I hear Mister Chickenhawk “bone spurs” draft dodger Trump tell the Iranians to rise up, unarmed, against the murder-crats. When Trump does his TACO, as he always does, we will witness the Islamic Revolutionary Guard begin the mass arrests, whippings and executions that are all too predictable. You know and I know that Trump is going to sell them out. All because he had no plan, just a momentary rush from his testosterone and Adderall injections. An empty, bloviating sack of a man, with small hands and a small heart.Our Analysis:Unraveling the Complex Webs of Power and Decision in the Invasion of Iraq and the Iran ConundrumThe Crux of Iraq’s Invasion and Its Oil:At the heart of the 2003 Iraq invasion lies a tale of intricate planning and strategic interests, driven not by a simplistic villainy but by a mesh of institutional power and geopolitical calculus. The narrative uncovers a complex scenario where the Bush administration, with significant influence from neo-conservatives within the Defense Department and external pressures from oil industry bigshots, orchestrated a plan to reshape Iraq's oil industry post-invasion.Institutional Power and Decisions:The Bush administration undeniably held the reins of institutional power, making the critical decisions to invade Iraq and subsequently shape its oil policy. However, this power was not wielded in isolation but was significantly influenced by external entities.The decision to draft plans for Iraq's oil post-invasion was a collective effort involving neo-conservatives, the State Department, and figures from the oil industry. This coalition of interests highlights a scenario where institutional power was leveraged by a nexus of government and non-government actors, blurring the lines of unilateral decision-making.Misdirection and Responsibility:The article frames the situation as a dichotomy of greed and incompetence, with the Bush administration’s elaborate plans for Iraq's oil juxtaposed against the Trump administration's lack of foresight regarding Iran. However, this narrative simplifies and misdirects responsibility in several ways:- It implicitly absolves the oil industry and other non-governmental actors of their role in influencing these decisions, focusing instead on the administrations in power.- It overlooks the complexity of international relations and the inherent unpredictability involved in managing geopolitical tensions, such as those with Iran.The Trump Administration’s Approach to Iran:The absence of a clear plan for dealing with Iran under the Trump administration, as highlighted, points to a stark difference in approach. While the criticism of being unprepared is valid, it’s essential to question the expectation of having a similar strategy for Iran as for Iraq, given the vastly different geopolitical contexts and the lessons learned from the Iraq invasion's aftermath.Revisiting Responsibility:Trump and his administration's decision-makers held institutional power regarding Iran, but the critique should focus on the lack of preparedness and strategic foresight rather than the absence of a specific plan mirroring Iraq’s.The framing of Trump’s lack of a plan for Iran as a failure equivalent to the morally and strategically questionable plans for Iraq’s oil misdirects responsibility. It overlooks the broader context of international diplomacy, intelligence challenges, and the significant shifts in global politics since the Iraq invasion.Conclusion: A Call for Nuanced CritiqueThe examination of these events underscores the necessity of a nuanced critique that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of institutional power, decision-making, and responsibility in international affairs. While the Bush administration orchestrated plans with far-reaching impacts based on a blend of strategic interests and external influences, the Trump administration’s approach to Iran reflects a different set of challenges and decisions shaped by contemporary geopolitical realities.Criticism where due. for the strategic manipulations and the shortsightedness in planning, but let’s direct it with precision, recognizing the complex interplay of actors and interests that define such monumental decisions. Misplaced blame serves no one, least of all the cause of understanding and addressing the systemic errors at play in these historical and contemporary narratives.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com