This map shows the plans for the trans-Afghani pipeline which is being vigorously pursued by the world's largest oil companies. Prior to the war in Afghanistan, these companies had already invested hundreds of billions of dollars in cash into the Caspian Sea region; however, because of the reluctance of the Taliban to negotiate a deal for the pipeline, the oil companies had no way of getting the oil to the markets.

Now that the U.S. has invaded Afghanistan and created a puppet government, the prime minister of which previously worked for UNOCAL, the plans for the construction of the pipeline are being implemented. However, recent reports suggest that the oil reserves in the Caspian Sea are much less than have been previously estimated. This factor may help to explain why the U.S. has forcefully occupied Iraq, which contains 11% of the worlds remaining oil, second only to Saudi Arabia.

Educate yourself about the U.S. government's covert support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban throughout the late 90's and well into August of 2001. This support from Washington came directly into Afghanistan in the form of cash, weapons, intelligence, and training. The conduit through which this support was channeled is the ISI Pakistani intelligence agency, which is a CIA front in that the DCI of the CIA selects the Chief of the ISI.

"Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official." San Francisco Chronicle 2 November 2001 (This comment comes from a Yale University study given by Central Asian specialist Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.)

This project of supporting the Taliban in order to secure access to a Trans-Afghani Oil pipeline continued until around the summer of 2001, when the relationship between the Taliban and the U.S. began to seriously unravel. Amid fears of the major oil companies that continued investment in the Taliban regime might not pay off, the U.S. government began to pursue the military option.

"The U.S. government hoped, despite a declining relationship with the regime, that the Taliban would be 'a source of stability in Central Asian that would enable the construction of oil pipelines across Central Asia'. From 1999 to 2001, it is clear that U.S. hopes in this respect had grown increasingly skeptical. Negotiations with the Taliban in 2001 appear to be conducted by the Bush Administration as a last ditch attempt to salvage a viable relationship with the regime." 1 At one of these meetings in July 2001, Tom Simmons, a former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, said "either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option." The words Simmons used were "a military operation." The last meeting between the U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August 2001 - five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington. Christina Rocca, the head of the Central Asian affairs at the U.S. Department of State, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad." 2

Confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one. At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." 3 Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, stated that according to information passed to him by U.S. officials in July 2001, "Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisors were already in place" and "Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation . . . 17,000 Russian troops were on standby." He was also told that "if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." 4

"Right around September 11, two U.S. Aircraft carrier task forces conveniently arrived in the Persian Gulf right at the same time on 'rotation.' Obviously, preplanned. Just before September 11, the UK had put together what was billed as the 'largest armada since the Falklands War' and had it steaming towards Oman, where now 23,000 UK troops are on maneuvers. This had been planned for at least 3 years. Also, the U.S. 'Bright Star' operation is currently going on in Egypt. 23,000 U.S. troops plus an additional 17,000 from NATO and its associates. This had been planned at least two years ago. Finally, NATO just landed 12,000 troops into Turkey. This had been planned for at least two years. It is obvious that we are seeing an operational War Plan being executed here that had been in the works for at least the past four years. September 11 is either a pretext or a trigger or both." 5

1. Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. The War on Freedom. Media Messenger Books. 2002

2. Godoy, Julio. U.S. Taliban Policy Influenced by Oil. Inter Press Service. 16 November 2001

3. Brisard, Jean-Charles and Dasquie, Guillaume. Bin Laden, la verite interdite. Denoel Impacts, Paris. 2001

4. Arney, George. 'U.S. "planned attack on Taleban".' BBC News. 18 Sept. 2001

5. Cited in Ruppert, Michael, A Time For Fear. From The Wilderness. Oct. 2001.

Peak Oil: Charts and Links

Home to 911 False Flag