Geopolitics
The study of how factors such as geography, economics, military capability and non-State actors affects the foreign policy of states.
All articles will require a short submission statement of 3-5 sentences.
Use the article title as the submission title. Do not editorialize the title or add your own commentary to the article title.
In this community we encourage long, in-depth submissions. Submissions should not be news articles that merely provide quick updates on current events; instead they should include background information and an explanation as to why the events they describe are occurring.
Submissions should not be about an individual country's domestic policies. Instead, they should be about relationships between different countries and/or relevant international organizations. Things like breakaway politics are permitted in this subreddit, as they are relevant to and could affect the geopolitical system.
Submissions are strongly encouraged to come from reputable sources. When posting from a lesser known source, please check whether the authors have some sort of qualification demonstrating they are knowledgeable of the subjects they discuss.
Sources that include (or solely contain) maps, statistics, or other multimedia (videos, interviews, primary sources, etc.) are permitted and even encouraged in this subreddit.
We encourage discussion and welcome anyone to pose hypotheses and ask questions. We allow self-posts.
We encourage comments to be cited.
view the rest of the comments
It certainly wasn't the sole or even the main factor, but the Zionist lobby definitely wanted the invasion and pushed for it hard. Iraq was a big obstacle to Zionist expansion plans in the region, just like Syria is today.
The territorial claims are not a pretext, Kuwait was a province of Iraq that was split off by the British who made it their colonial bridgehead in the Gulf in order to better control the region and gain access to its resources. However that wasn't the main reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The reason was primarily economical and had to do with Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields effectively stealing their oil. Kuwait, having essentially been transfered from being a British protectorate to a US one, did this with US encouragement and support, implicit promises to protect them in case of conflict.
Meanwhile however the US was also telling Iraq through back channels that they would not intervene in case of a conflict with Kuwait, emboldening them to invade so the US could have a pretext to bomb and sanction them.
This was never proven. In fact it is more likely that the whole thing was staged by elements in the US deep state (CIA) to push the US government over the edge in their decision to take out Saddam.
So the US became the belligerent running amok instead? You are implying that the imperialists were interested in preserving the stability of the region but that is actually the exact opposite of what they have always wanted. They benefit from conflict and instability in key geographical locations like the Middle East. They purposely created the conditions for the rise of ISIS, covertly armed and funded them, and then launched the dirty war on Syria.
Keeping the region in chaos halts Eurasian economic integration and regional economic development (for example: multiple pipeline projects that were similarly threatening to US geopolitical interests as Nordstream was were put on ice or permanently canceled as a result of these wars), leaving not just the region itself but the entire continent more vulnerable to neo-colonial exploitation.
Really great explanation, good post.