Joe,

Money is nothing more than a means for completing a transaction or commitment. As such it is involved in absolutely every case, making the claim invalid because it is not disprovable.

The fact is that what we see in the way of US meddling and adventurism in the ME can't be explained by capitalist impulses nor the imperatives of the military industrial complex.

The MIC would opt for a tidy little demonstration war in the Caribbean, Central Africa or Central America perhaps.

Capitalists would opt for regime change in Cuba or Venezuela, a bit more of a challenge.

Neither would opt for the risks and damage to their interests that invasion and or occupation of Iran, Iraq or even Afghanistan entail. Many US weapons systems were actually shown to be useless junk in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US economy suffered tremendously from the diversion of resources while Russia and Venezuela gained due to the higher oil prices that resulted from the Iraq war.

Knapp has shamelessly produced a senseless re-direction piece here.

If it involves the MENA region and you have to ask why, the answer is probably Zionism.

Niq Naq should bear in mind that the Soviet Bloc also dabbled in support for Zionism and Zionism itself dabbled in Socialism. In the final analysis, economic ideology is totally distinct from racialist ideology. What we are seeing in the M.E. is racialist ideology at work, enforced by the might of the US military apparatus.

Giraldi is a bald face apologist for Obama:

"... this is a major disinformation strategy that involves [the "alternative" media], diplomatic, intelligence, and media resources. ...

The Obama administration ... does not want a war with Iran at this time, even though it has done precious little to prevent one."

Ignore that he has just sent multiple aircraft carriers to Iran's shores and that he has 100,000 troops stationed in the area.

"It has sent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to Israel to warn the government of Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States will not support an uncoordinated military action by Israel. But Israel has refused the demand to provide advance warning of an attack and has defended its right to take action against the perceived Iranian threat."

Or so we are told.

"This does not sit well in Washington, but there is little that the White House can do in an election year, since any attempt to pressure Tel Aviv will result in an avalanche of criticism from Congress and the media."

#######################################

We are seeing a lot of this type of excuse making as damage control so that Obama can avoid responsibility for HIS actions. It does not surprise me that Anti-war.com is peddling this meme.

Kieth's latest article:

JAPAN: RADIATION ‘SAFE’, PRESS EVACUATES, INVESTORS SCARED
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/japan-...

The fatal flaws to the theory posited above include the facts that if the oil majors wished to deprive the global market of Iraqi oil they might simply have encouraged the Bush regime to tighten sanctions against Iraqi oil exports. No costly or risky invasion needed.

Secondly, there is simply no evidence to back up the 'war against oil' theory. Stocks in general rose during the time period cited above and the argument is presented very weakly.

In short, Hammond and his ilk are shills for Israel. Israel lobby deniers like Chomsky.

One wonders how many generations must suffer under racial supremacist domination while we wait for the demise of capitalism as the only goal worthy of pursuing.

Surely Vered can see that his position is useful for the elites, much more useful than for example the anti-Zionist position.