The Broken Telegraph

by Ian Ebright

I am currently fighting through an intense full body cold and am sweating profusely as I type, so I’m going to skip today’s opinion piece in favor of a question for you.

As you’ll see in this article, one of Osama bin Laden’s lesser-known grievances against the U.S. had to do with our inexpensive access to oil (a mere $11 dollars per barrel back in 1998). At that time, bin Laden demanded that the cost be adjusted to $144 dollars per barrel, and claimed that the West had ”stolen” $36 trillion from Muslims in the middle east by paying far less.

Now here’s where it gets creepy: One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote about possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. One of those decisions would be a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which would put oil supplies at risk.

Fast forward to now. Oil is going for $144 per barrel, and we are fighting in Iraq. Someone recently reminded Congress of this matter in context of bin Laden’s wishes:

Ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed far-fetched to most…

I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.

Question: did the U.S.A. play into the enemy’s hand, or are we winning the struggle against terrorism? Is there a third possibility?