Pepe Escobar: Geopolitics of Energy, 2015 Outlook.

Posted on January 3, 2015

by Jerry Alatalo

oil wellAlphabet Don’t know how he keeps his sense of humor. Talking about global geopolitics journalist Pepe Escobar. Perhaps Mr. Escobar is simply happy to talk with other journalists instead of spending the hours alone researching various news events around the world. Whatever the cause for his ability to keep smiling and laughing, Pepe Escobar is one of the independent media’s well-known journalist/writers.

His articles are often sprinkled with somewhat flamboyant phrases, yet many appreciate his ways of artfully delivering points that paint accurate descriptions and analysis of world events. He talks to Sean Stone, son of Academy Award winning filmmaker Oliver Stone, for close to an hour about current events. The interview pays particular attention to the tremendous role of gas/oil industry market competition as it relates to important new and worrying developments in international relations.

The interview begins with Pepe Escobar giving essentially the same historical account that documentary filmmaker Michael Moore did in his 2004 film critical of the George W. Bush administration: “Fahrenheit 9/11”. In Afghanistan, the reason suggested by both Moore and Escobar for sending the military in was to secure a pipeline passing from the rich energy fields of Turkmenistan through the west part of Afghanistan and through Pakistan.

When America invaded Afghanistan, the Bush-Cheney administration thought the ruling Taliban would go along with a pipeline agreement in return for monetary considerations, but the Taliban had different ideas. Bush and Cheney were looking to control the region’s energy pipelines, routes and infrastructure. Pepe Escobar asserts that there was already a plan to build this and other pipelines 2 months before September 11, 2001 occurred, bringing more questions about what really happened on 9/11 plus further reasons to consider a new/real investigation. Many feel the government’s official 9/11 Commission Report fell short on a large number of either unasked or unanswered questions.

The Bush-Cheney plan, which was planned and believed as coming to pass in a straightforward manner, became obstructed when Afghanis proved more difficult to deal with than the Bush administration had imagined. The Taliban would come to control 50-60% of western Afghanistan, where the pipeline had been planned to pass. The Afghanistan War became America’s longest war – thirteen years and, in the minds of many, still going.

During this time Iran, rich in natural gas from one of the world’s largest gas deposits shared with Qatar, proposed a pipeline to Pakistan and India, a project which the Bush administration wanted cancelled by any and all means. According to Escobar, the Iran project stalled. Iran’s huge natural gas resources may help explain the sanctions against that nation, as contrasted to Iran’s so-called “nuclear ambitions”. The nations of Iran and Qatar share an immense natural gas field, as mentioned, and both countries proposed multi-billion dollar pipelines pass over and through Syria. Qatar’s proposal became turned down by the Syrian government in favor of an $11 billion pipeline project agreement directing Iran’s natural gas across Iraq and Syria to the lucrative European markets.

It was shortly after that pipeline agreement was first announced in 2011 that war in Syria – still ongoing today after more than 200,000 have died and over a million people have become displaced – began. The humanitarian crisis which has come about because of the ongoing war in Syria is widely acknowledged as the world’s largest. Perhaps the timing of major pipeline contracts and war in Syria was a coincidence, or perhaps it was not.

Mr. Escobar describes the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an army of mercenaries, made up of young, disgruntled, and many times unemployed men from many countries and regions – most of whom are looking for paychecks from ISIS, or whichever mercenary army is paying the best. Escobar adds that terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria have also formed because of “blowback” against America for past military actions, especially the Iraq War begun in 2003. As in the case of pipeline deals and Syria, the Iraq War became initiated in large part due to what some frankly call lies from George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and others about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and connection to al Qaeda and 9/11.

As the interview between Pepe Escobar and Sean Stone proceeds, other energy related geopolitical news events become discussed, including the possibility that Saudi Arabia and the United States have planned the recent drastic reductions in oil prices to hurt the economies of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela among other nations. Escobar suggests that events in Ukraine over the past year are also related to energy market competition, as Russia has tremendous oil/natural gas reserves.

Pepe Escobar thinks efforts to mend fences by America with Iran through the ongoing nuclear negotiations are being carried out to prevent Iran’s turning toward China and Russia for trade/energy deals due to frustration with western powers’ economic sanctions – Americans trying to find ways to invest in Iran with its 80 million population. Escobar admits he is uncertain how global events and situations will turn out. With respect to Iran, he can’t predict whether it will become courted by the U.S., China and Russia, or if Iran will turn away from the U.S. and toward China, Russia, India and the other BRICS group of nations.

Both Stone and Escobar seem in agreement that the world is experiencing major geopolitical changes, and that the threat of wars has made it important for large groups of average citizens from around the world to act together to prevent potentially catastrophic escalation of military confrontations.

Finally, Pepe Escobar shares with Sean Stone his current outlook: “We are all looking forward to a better 2015, but with the intellectual level of politicians running the world these days – be careful everybody”. 

****

(Thank you to TheLip TV at YouTube)

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Pepe Escobar: Geopolitics of Energy, 2015 Outlook.

    1. Hello,
      Found your article on the Middle East and the importance of focusing on oil and natural gas very good. Also read the post on banking; the one where you and Henry Law got into one heckuva discussion in the comments. It’s funny that my view is great agreement on your Middle East analysis but considerably different views about money creation. In your discussion with Mr. Law, my views corresponded with his, sorry to say. Have you watched the money documentaries by Bill Still – Money Masters, The Secret of Oz, Jekyll Island? You can find them on YouTube if you haven’t. If so, would appreciate your thoughts. Kind of a “coincidence” that Bill Still ran for president in 2012 as a Libertarian, yet his views on money are so much different than yours. Economics is such an imprecise science, or perhaps it’s more of an art. 🙂
      Thanks for dropping by,
      Jerry

      Like

      1. Thank you very much for your comments and hospitality.

        When you say the one about money you mean “The Socialist Myth of the Greedy Banker”? I would advise you to also read “The Socialist anti-Semitic myth of the money creation out of thin air”, and “The Socialist Myth of Economic Bubbles”.All three are about money creation.

        I have postgraduate studies in economics and finance, and I belive I know what I am talking about. I am busy writing something right now, but when I finish, I will watch the documentary that you are talking about. Is it something like the “Money as debt” “documentary?

        You are wrong about what you say about economics. Economic laws are like the law of gravity. What you are talking about is the Keynesian or Marxist economic models where you have politicians playing with the economy. Each politician is like an artist when designing the economy. You are right about that.

        Thanks for the comments

        Like

        1. In the field of medicine, when doctors receive university training they take virtually zero courses on the importance of food and nutrition, alternative treatment/therapies etc., even though for example, the use of medicinal herbs has been proven in some cases more effective than pharmaceuticals – without the negative side effects. In the same way, students in economics schools are frequently exposed to a narrow view of economic theory, many times earning degrees without becoming aware of the entire field of economic theory. My fundamental point is monetary policy should not be controlled by private interests and an agenda for a very few, but money supply should be a public utility operated in the interest of the people. It’s perhaps the most important subject of all.
          Thanks,
          Jerry

          Like

          1. You are absolutelly right. I went to very good colleges, and yet I have learned nothing about economics. Because in economic degrees they teach nothing about the Austrian economists.

            Most of the economics I know, I have learned them from reading Murray Rothbard, a famous Austrian economist. I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. You believe that money creation is privatelly controlled.

            In all 3 of my essays that I mentioned above, I believe I explain that this is not the case. I can also recommend a great book, more of an economic comic, “How an Economy grows and why it doesn’t”, which is free , and from which I have learned more than from my postgraduate studies,
            http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf .

            Then you can read Murray’s Rothbard classics “What has government done to our money”, which is free again,
            http://mises.org/sites/default/files/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money_3.pdf.

            Then Murray Rothbard’s “The case against the Fed”, free again
            http://mises.org/sites/default/files/The%20Case%20Against%20the%20Fed_2.pdf .

            If you spend some time on these books you will learn a lot more than you would learn by putting a lot more effort in an a college studying economics. And that’s not an opinion. That’s a fact

            Are you a doctor?

            Like

            1. When privately owned banks make loans, and when the Federal Reserve does QE, money is created. This couldn’t be any easier to understand, in my humble opinion. The U.S. government creates only 3% of money in circulation through coins. If you can explain how money becomes created in a way which proves this simple explanation erroneous, please do so. Saying another person is wrong without going into the reasons for doing so makes for nonproductive discussion.

              Like

          2. Regarding Pepe Escobar, I have learned a lot by reading his articles. But I would not share his article because he is Russian and Brazilian propaganda.

            BRICS propaganda to be more accurate. Top quality propaganda, but propaganda.

            Like

            1. Mr. Escobar’s views on energy and pipelines and how they affect events and global conditions seem to closely match yours. On the one hand you say you’ve learned a lot from his articles, then in essence you say those article are very good propaganda. Isn’t it one or the other?

              Like

              1. No. It isn’t. He is a BRICS reporters. When he criticizes the Americans it is very interesting. The problem is that you need to read other people who criticize the BRICS.

                You know, propaganda is not about telling lies. At least high quality propaganda is not about lying. That’s chep propaganda. High quality propaganda is about using truth

                Like

                    1. No offense intended, but an unwillingness to respond directly in a discussion is not constructive and seriously harms any possibility of arriving at a place of positive agreement and/or ideas which could improve the human condition. Thanks, but such a conversation isn’t worth your or my time.

                      Like

  1. Thanks for a great post.

    By the way, I read a few comments. Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, how can anyone believe that the U.S. currency is not privately controlled? The U.S. only mints coins. The Fed not only charges us to print OUR currency, they control the federal funds rate, foreign exchange market policy and “regulate” the banking industry. Wow.

    Like

    1. ASIC,
      How are you. Certainly money creation power rests in the hands of private owners of the Fed. A few examples of how convoluted and misinformed the discussions about private ownership of the Fed are. I used to follow Pete Dolack at Systemic Disorder (his writings have appeared on Counterpunch) until in his comments section on one of his posts I pointed out that the Fed was privately owned, then he responded with something like “the Fed isn’t privately owned; I (Pete) don’t know where people get this idea…etc”. I responded with Bill Still’s documentaries “The Money Masters” and “The Secret of Oz” to engage in discussion attempting to get to the truth. He responded like I was some type of “conspiracy theorist”; like it was a waste of time to even discuss such a “myth”. After that I un-followed his blog.
      Another, perhaps more profound example, occurred a few weeks ago when, watching “Brunch With Bernie”, Thom Hartmann’s Friday call-in show with Senator Bernie Sanders. Having never called in, I decided to continue dialing the number until finally getting through, and on the air asked Sanders to comment on “the global trillion-dollar per year tax evasion/haven industry, and “is it time to nationalize the Federal Reserve?” Sanders responded to the tax evasion question by giving examples of multinational corporations who earned billions but paid zero U.S. income tax, but had zero response to nationalizing the Federal Reserve. Not one word in response. When America’s most progressive politician can’t even comment on the Fed, it tells us just how long a distance there is left to cover on this most important subject. Perhaps he’s playing his cards tight to his chest and waiting for the best moment to take on the Fed in debates. Hard to figure.By the way, Hartmann also heard my question, and he proceeded to take the following Mon-Tues-Wed off, then returned with a noticeably more rebellious stance in his reporting (a big Hartmann fan). Interesting.
      Nice to meet you.
      Thanks,
      Jerry

      Like

Leave A Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s