From Zero Hedge:
According to the Iraq Energy Institute, an independent, nonprofit policy organization focused on Iraq’s energy sector, the army of radical Islamists controls production of 30,000 barrels of oil a day in Iraq and 50,000 barrels in Syria.
By selling the oil on the black market at a discounted price of $40 per barrel (compared to about $93 per barrel in the free market), ISIS takes in $3.2 million a day.
The oil revenue, which amounts to nearly $100 million each month, allows ISIS to fund its military and terrorist attacks — and to attract more recruits from around the world, including America. Most importantly, we added that to be successful in counterterrorism efforts, "the U.S. and its allies must “push the Islamic State out of the oil fields it has captured and disrupt its ability to smuggle the oil to foreign markets.
None of this was surprising to anyone, but what was quite surprising is that it took the allied forces over a year to take the oil revenue threat seriously and begin targeting the Islamic State's oil infrastructure in earnest.
Today, in an article titled "Why US Efforts to Cut Off Islamic State's Funds Have Failed" Bloomberg tries to explain just how it is that despite a more than a year long campaign, ISIS funding remains as strong as ever, and notes that "the latest round of airstrikes are directly related to the administration’s new math.
“You have to go after the oil, and you have to do it in a serious way, and we’ve just begun to do that now,” citing Benjamin Bahney, an international policy analyst at the Rand Corp., a U.S. Department of Defense-funded think tank.
4 comments:
Why not bomb them?
OBAMA AND THE JIHADI SINGERS – ‘ISIS IS JUST ALRIGHT WITH ME’
besides, since Hillary's reset button took effect after the 2012 elections, he owes Putin the chance to take control of that oil. After all, what are frenemies for?
OT: Iran Guard simulates capture of Al Aqsa Mosque
Rush said this siting an article in the Washington Free Beacon. It's the last paragraph of the story that provides the proof. "Obama Administration Weighs Partnership with Russia Against ISIS."
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-administration-weighs-partnership-with-russia-against-islamic-state/
The last little note in this story supports the theory of Walid Phares that Obama's real strategy is to be more on the side of Shi'ite Iran rather than moderate Sunnis, like those in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS. In fact, the article mentions something simply dumbfounding at the bottom, and it's this. Quote: "Mark Toner, State Department spokesman, said on Monday at a press briefing that US officials have also urged their Russian counterparts to talk with Assad's government about no longer purchasing oil from the Islamic State."
What?
Is this why Obama did not seriously bomb the oil trucks over the last year?
So now we know why the US has not bombed the ISIS oil fields and refineries. We don't want to tick off Putin and Iran. Let me further explain. If Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, you would do what Trump is saying: You would bomb their oil fields. Their oil fields are their number one source of funding. (I use that term because liberals love it. "Funding" replaces "earning." It implies policy. "Funding" means giving people money.) The bottom line is, ISIS has commandeered and taken over a number of oil fields in the region, and they are deriving most of their financial benefit from the sale of oil.
So if Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, and if we really wanted to join them in destroying ISIS, we would first tell Assad, "You stop buying oil from them," and then we would join forces and take those oil fields out, and they'd be out of money. But that's not happening. Syria is buying oil from ISIS. Bashar Assad is thus funding ISIS. Now, this also explains why the US hasn't blown up those refineries and oil fields that ISIS now controls, because we don't want to tick off Russia and Iran.
Good Point. If we really wanted to hurt them, we'd be attacking all of their resources and financial endevours.
Post a Comment