The Art of War

[alice wellintown]

When the crisis of oil, and it was then as it was when the US struck
after 9-11, a matter of oil and refinery (Abadan), threatened the
Anglo-Iranian business, the Brits had to step softly. Hostages would
be taken, the US pressure against military action was real, Russia
could pull Iran behind the Iron Curtain, India had Independence, so
her soldiers would not be available, the world would cry imperialism,
the Brits would not get enough money from an invasion to pay for it
unless it were a protracted military involvement. Messy & Mossy.
Mohammed Mossadegh, that is. Send in James Bond? Something must be
done, for surely other oil countries would be emboldened and the Suez
could  be nationalized. The Brits, weakened, could not count on the
Yanks because the US pretended, at first, that the Suez was not worth
a military invasion, but...long story cut short...Harriman &
Brown...Trade Unions ...JFK...Churchill...Labor ...embargo...legal
action...oil from Iran trickles and blood flows in Korea. Ajax. When
Iraq invaded Kuwait, not Ajax could clean it up, big boots make big
footprints. Of course, all the things that made the Brits step softly
were, in new ways, there for the US after 9-11. But 9-11 made a road
not taken one that the US take and that has made all the difference.
Now, oil is a plenty, even with the BRIC developments, though refinery
is a problem. How does the US get out? Or, stay? Again, Korea and Iran
form a V.



> I did not mean the bomb but that would be part of the devolution of the
> Great Game which the British managed with a very small footprint and the US
> cannot with a very large and intrusive footprint.
> On games, it's interesting that Pinker's revival of game theory in popular
> culture should intersect with V.'s Great Game.
>
>