The Ultimate Prize:

The Ultimate Prize: Control of Petroleum— or Control of Petro-Currency?


“. . . they have seduced my people, saying, Peace, and there was no peace . . . .” Ezekiel 13:10)



The Muslim faith is divided into two primary sects: Sunni and Shiite. They’ve been at each other’s throat since the death of the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. Their disagreement is religious and goes to which sect acquired legitimate authority over the Muslim faith after Mohammed died. The two sects can go through generations of peaceful coexistence. But every so often, they wage holy war against each other.

ZeroHedge.com recently commented on rising Middle East tensions:

“What’s changed in the Middle East is the perception that the USA has any role to play any longer even in the diplomatic theatrics. The Middle East is disintegrating faster than any polity in historical memory. It appears that, if anything, the USA has only succeeded in accelerating the process wherever we turn our attentions.”

The US government directly supports the Sunni rebels in Syria and thereby indirectly supports the Sunni rebels in Iraq—all the while claiming to support the Shiite government of Iraq.

Our gov-co is playing both ends against the middle. It’s fanning the flames of war from both sides. I see only two plausible explanations for this seemingly contradictory behavior:

1) our government is incredibly stupid, grossly incompetent and is therefore accidentally fomenting holy war in the Middle East; or

2) our government knows exactly what it’s doing and is intentionally scheming to cause holy war in the Middle East between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims.

As much as I dislike our government, I don’t believe it’s as stupid and incompetent as it often appears.

Therefore, I suspect that the correct explanation for our government’s current conduct in the Middle East must be explanation #2. Our government is intentionally working to pit Sunnis against Shiites in a widespread Middle East holy war that will cause Muslims to kill Muslims, subject much of the Middle East to chaos, raise the price of crude oil at the same time that the US is becoming a major exporter of crude oil; and help protect Israel from any unified threat from the Muslim peoples.

•  There’s an ancient maxim of war: Divide and conquer.

Thanks to ancient tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, Muslims are being violently “divided”.   It remains to be seen if they will subsequently be “conquered”.

But if Middle East nations are to be divided and then conquered, we might ask “conquered by whom”?

The United States military could barely handle Iraq. The US is not willing or even able to unilaterally put enough boots on the ground to take control of the entire Middle East.

There’s no other single nation that might be able to move in to “conquer” a “divided” Middle East.

•  In theory, it might be possible that a “divided” Middle East to be effectively “conquered” by private corporations drilling for crude oil. But the Middle East is so inherently unstable and prone to violence that I doubt that any group of private corporations could unilaterally enforce a “peace” in the Middle East sufficient to allow corporations to steal and sell Middle East crude oil.

If private corporations could “conquer” the Middle East it would only be with the assistance of some superior political power able to deploy enough military force to hold the Muslims in line.   But, even with the assistance of the US military, I doubt that any coalition of oil-producing corporations could be strong enough to impose “peace” on the Middles East.

If anyone “conquers” the Middle East, it won’t be multi-national corporations.

•  However fantastic the idea may be, it’s conceivable that a coalition of nations—say, Russia, China, the United States and perhaps the European Union (all acting for “humanitarian” reasons, of course) might move into the Middle East and partition that region into several new-and-improved administrative “districts”—just as the European powers partitioned the Middle East after WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Each of these “humanitarian” nations would take responsibility for controlling those districts and imposing peace.

Here, the word “peace” would be defined as “the uninterrupted flow of cheap crude oil out of Middle-East to be sold at low prices to the world’s major powers.”

All, for humanitarian reasons, of course.

And, of course, it would only be fair that those “humanitarian” nations imposing “peace” on the Middle East be allowed to take a fat slice of the crude oil being pumped out of the Middle East.   After all, it costs money to be a “humanitarian peacekeeper” so it’s only fair that the nations imposing “peace” in the Middle East be compensated for their expenses.

Whether those four “humanitarian” nations would eventually go to World War against each other in the Middle East is an intriguing question—especially in light of End Times prophecies seen in the Bible. I’ll leave that rabbit trail for another day.

I recognize that this hypothesis may be too fantastic to be believed.  Today’s “great powers” are so disparate and antagonistic that it’s hard to imagine them working together to rob Middle East crude oil. But that’s pretty much what happened in the aftermath of WWI—the “great powers” of that time worked together to gang up on, divide, partition, and rob, the Middle East.

It’s been done before, it could be done again.

•  However improbable, it’s also conceivable that, in midst of widespread chaos caused by a Middle-East, Muslim holy war, the United Nations might send in enough multi-national troops to impose peace in the Middle East. If the Shiites and Sunnis killed enough of themselves, the Arab people might welcome the UN.

The world would cheer if the UN brought “peace” (the uninterrupted flow of cheap crude oil) to the Middle East.

The net result of a UN-occupation and imposition of peace might not be the renewed partition of the Middle East, but rather a kind of imposed “unification” where the entire Middle East became a regional “protectorate”. There’d still be individual nations like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But they’d all be “unified” in their subservience to the UN.

Such subservience would mean that UN would control how much crude oil each Middle East “nation” pumped and sold into the world markets. If the UN (or any other entity or organization) could control the Middle East’s production and sale of crude oil, the UN would acquire an enormous source of revenue and power to elevate it far above its current status as a glorified debating society.   The UN would have real power and a genuine foundation for the New World Order.

More, suppose the UN or any other coalition of major powers could “unify” the modern Middle East—much as the Ottoman Empire (A.D. 1299-1922) once unified the Middle East. Suppose the UN/coalition gained control of Middle East oil production. Then, the UN/coalition could introduce its own petro-currency and use it to replace the fiat dollar as world reserve currency.

I’m not saying that today’s Great Powers currently intend to “divide and conquer” the Middle East in order to issue a new petro-currency. Saying so might foster a fantastic conspiracy theory.   But I am saying that this fantastic speculation (control of the Middle East may be less about control of crude oil than control of a “petro-currency”) makes for an interesting hypothesis.

•  In fact, if you like fantasy, consider the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) rebels who are Sunnis fighting to overcome the Shiite governments of Syria and Iraq and then unify those two nations. Their express objective is to unify the Middle East under the control of a single, Muslim “Caliphate” modeled on the former Ottoman Empire. It’s reported that some middle-east rebels (like ISIS) receive funds, training and weapons from the CIA.

If ISIS succeeded in reestablishing a “Caliphate,” there’d be a single authority ruling the entire Middle East. That single authority could control the production of Middle East oil and therefore issue a new petro-currency to replace the flagging fiat dollar.

•  Note that in A.D. 1971, President Nixon closed the “gold window” and the US dollar became a pure fiat currency.  Thus, the intrinsically-worthless fiat dollar was no longer backed by gold.  Central bankers and big governments hate gold-backed currency because it forces them to embrace monetary discipline.

But, after A.D. 1971, the fiat-dollar/World-Reserve-Currency was backed by production of crude oil.  If you wanted to purchase crude oil on the international markets, you had to first have fiat dollars.

After A.D. 1971, the fiat US fiat dollar seemed to continue to serve as World Reserve Currency. But was the World Reserve Currency really the fiat dollar backed only by the “full faith and credit of the American people”? Or was the World Reserve Currency the “petro-dollar” backed by the crude oil of Saudi Arabia, OPEC and virtually all of the Middle East oil producing nations?

Suppose that, technically speaking, the real “World Reserve Currency” for the past 40 years was not the fiat dollar, but was the “petro-dollar”.   If that were true, would the New World Order have loyalty to the fiat dollar–or to the Middle East as the primary source of “petro” in the “petro-currency”?

Without a World Reserve Currency, can there be a One World Government?  I can’t imagine it.

If the fiat dollar fails, what will replace it as World Reserve Currency?  Another fiat currency?  I don’t think so.  I don’t believe the world will accept another pure fiat currency as the next World Reserve Currency.  If that’s true, then it follows that the people of the world will be looking for a new currency that’s backed by something tangible like gold or crude oil.

As I said, central banks and big governments hate gold-backed currency because gold imposes a discipline that prevents the big-banks/big-governments from issuing enough currency to “buy the world”.  One world government would be the biggest government of all. Its hatred for gold would be the most intense of all.  If the people of the world won’t accept another fiat currency as World Reserve Currency, and the governments of the world won’t accept another gold-based currency, what’s left to provide for another World Reserve Currency other than another “petro-currency” backed by the Middle East’s production of crude oil?

If it were true that the next, most-likely World Reserve Currency was another petro-currency, would the primary objective for control of the Middle East be to control the flow of crude oil? Or might the primary objective be the control and issuance of a new “petro-currency” able to: 1) replace the fiat dollar; 2) serve as a new World Reserve Currency; and 3) provide a financial foundation for the New World Order?

•  A new “Caliphate” over the Middle East would surely claim to be a devoted Muslim institution. But, at the top, might a new Caliphate be controlled by the CIA or some agency of the New World Order?   (After all, the CIA is already supporting ISIS—and thus, supporting the movement for a new Caliphate.)

Is it possible that a restored “Caliphate” (control of Middle East oil production) is as much a dream of the CIA and/or New World Order as it is a dream of Muslims?

•  Historically, the maxim “Divide and conquer” doesn’t stand alone.

It’s followed by a second maxim: “Unite and rule”.

It appears currently possible for the Middle East to become “divided” by Muslim holy war. Is that division intended by Israel, the US, the New World Order and/or the remaining major power to implement some sort of “conquest” of the Middle East nations? Or is that potential division primarily intended as merely a first step in the implementation of some sort ultimate unification of the Middle East?  Would such unification not only allow a singular entity to control production of Middle East crude oil, but also control the issuance of a new global “petro-currency” backed by Middle East crude oil?

•  Of course, I’m just spitballin’ here. I’m not making any predictions. I’m jus’ sayin’ “What if?”

In fact, the probability of a “unified” Middle East is low. Some Sunni and Shiite Muslims hate each other almost as much (maybe more) than they hate Jews.

The only way a unified Middle East might emerge is in the aftermath of a truly horrific regional war. Such war couldn’t be fought by mere, blood-thirsty Muslims eager to behead their enemies (which is an interesting threat but not particularly terrifying unless it’s your head they’re eager to chop).

A Middle East war sufficiently horrific to justify regional unification would have to involve the detonation of several nuclear weapons by two or more Middle East nations.   We’d have to see something like a nuclear WWIII erupt in the Middle East before we could expect Middle East unification and singular control over the production of Middle East crude oil and a new petro-currency.

I’d bet we’d have to see at least three major Middle East cities “nuked”. We’d have to know that the resulting casualties ran into several hundred thousands, and perhaps a few million. Then, even the Muslim psychopaths might be willing to lay down their scimitars and consent to regional unification.

•  I’m somewhat fascinated by this speculation, but I don’t seriously expect a nuclear WWIII to break out between Sunni and Shiite nations anytime soon—if ever.

At least, I don’t expect that sort of war to break out among Muslims without some outside “help” from Israel, the US or even the New World Order.

But if a false flag event occurred where a nuclear device exploded in a major Sunni or Shiite city (or especially at a major Sunni/Shiite religious shrine) that could be blamed on one of those competing sects, Katy bar the door. Heads would roll. Big time.

Or, at least they’d roll until a second or third nuclear device exploded and even the Muslim fanatics decided it was time to play nice.

•  ZeroHedge.com continues:

“Since the 1970s, we haven’t felt the ultimate consequence of trouble in that part of the world, which would be an interruption in the oil supply coming out of there. Back then, there might have been something we could do about it. Now there is nothing we can do but stand on the sidelines and wait.”

It’s true that there’s virtually nothing our government can do to restore peace in the Middle East.  But, if the Bible is true and our leaders shout, “Peace, Peace—but there is no peace,” there won’t be any peace in the Middle East regardless of what any mortal man may do.  If gov-co can’t restore peace, why not go with the flow towards war?

I.e., even if our gov-co is powerless to restore peace in the Middle East, it’s not true that there’s nothing gov-co can do but stand by helplessly and wait.

What our government does have power to do and, at least, appears to already be doing, is fan the flames of holy war between Sunni’s and Shiites, and thereby collapse the Middle East into chaos.

Our gov-co may be powerless to bring peace to the Middle East. But, acting on behalf of special interests and/or the New World Order, our gov-co is not powerless to bring war.

Conventional wisdom indicates that the real prize in the Middle East control of the production of crude oil. Conventional wisdom is probably right.

But, is it possible that the ultimate goal in controlling the Middle East may be control over issuance of the world’s next petro-currency?

Inquiring minds . . . , etc.

We shall see.FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.