US Planned to Invade in 1973!

[MKSheppard]

All Hail RIchard Nixon!

US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973
by Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent


The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.

Warning from US

The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.


The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where Iraq might be tempted to intervene

British assessment
The ambassador quoted Mr
Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

The oil embargo was begun by Arab governments during the Yom Kippur or October war between Israel and Egypt and Syria, which left Israel in a strong position.

It was designed to put pressure on the West to get Israel to make concessions. The embargo was aimed mainly at the United States but many other countries were affected.

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oilfields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

This phrase indicates some knowledge of American plans.

Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.

Airborne troops

The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel.

"We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi," it said.

Two divisions would then be flown in but the report gives a warning that the occupation might have to last 10 years. It would also alienate the Arab world and provoke a confrontation with the Soviet Union, though the JIC did not think that Moscow would use military force itself.

British role expected

There was a potential task for the British. The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge, that the US might want Britain to capture the Abu Dhabi oilfields as some British officers were seconded to the Abu Dhabi defence force.

"For this reason, the Americans might ask the UK to undertake this particular operation," it says.

The prospect of the British military fighting seconded British officers is not gone into.

The assessment reflects on the danger of action by Iraq, whose vice president at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein.

"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait, where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says.

It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."

In a follow up, a Foreign Office official noted: "Lord Carrington [the defence secretary] has suggested that some discreet contingency planning be put in hand"

In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.

[The Aliens]

Can't say I'm surprised at Nixon.

Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.

Even the fact that they reject gunboat diplomacy is telling. They needed that oil and no pissant President was going to stop them. They said they wouldn't invade 'until it effects Western ecomonmics', any guesses on that timeframe?

[lukexcom]

I'd guess that had the embargo continued for another 6 months to a year, then the invasion forces would be staging for the assault. If the embargo got tighter, then the schedule would naturally be sped up.

[dummnutzer]

Invasions were not only considered by the "evil" US.

A respected West German law professor wrote a lenghty and interesting piece in 1973/74 , not yet available on the Internet, that invading SA would be done in self defense and legal under the somewhat pacifist West German constitution.

Luckily, he was ignored by the gouvernment.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is really no big deal at all. Hundreds of people are kept busy constantly doing nothing but making plans and considering all options for a given crisis. But just because the option was considered, as it should have been, doesn't mean the US actually came remotely close to implementing it.

I'd guess that had the embargo continued for another 6 months to a year, then the invasion forces would be staging for the assault. If the embargo got tighter, then the schedule would naturally be sped up.

The Arabs couldn't have pulled a longer embargo, those oil exports are what kept them alive economically, and there cash reserves wouldn't have lasted much longer. Today most of the major oil producers couldn't even pull any form of embargo at all, because they don't have the cash reserves.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Just oen of many unseen plans drawn up for every conceivable situation.

I couldn't see it escalating much more anyway, the Arabs needed the money in the end and it is their primary income. Had they somehow kept it going on more, it'd fuck everyone up and oil for the invasion would have to be found elsewhere anyway.

[EmperorSolo51]

I just don't see what the bid deal is. The US has always drawn up military plans for nearly every single scenario. I wouldn't be too surprised if our government has plans to go to war with Canada, Europe. or even Britain.

[Vympel]

It would've been interesting to see what WarPac would've done in response.

[Sea Skimmer]

It would've been interesting to see what WarPac would've done in response.

Iraq probably would have welcomed them into set up a base or five. I doubt they'd do anything directly militarily though. Another question this raises is what would it all do to the US military budget? No Carter era skimping could change a lot. US troops in the area in strength also could bring major changes in Iran's history.

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe they were saving up until this "project" was affordable.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually, the United States does have a contingency plan for war with Canada. I remember someone posting something about it's existence being leaked a while ago. The most that came from it were alot of South Park jokes.

[Axis Kast]

We had War Plan Red until 1971 or '73, IIRC.

[Xenophobe3691]

Actually, the United States does have a contingency plan for war with Canada. I remember someone posting something about it's existence being leaked a while ago. The most that came from it were alot of South Park jokes.

We probably still have it, considering all the times we've either tried invading that country, planning it, or just outright refusing its existence...

[Master of Ossus]

Frankly, this is no big deal. Many modern countries, including the US, prepare military solutions for almost all major economic and political crises. The vast majority of these never come to fruition, and everyone making these plans knows that, but they're there just in case.

And, incidentally, if such an invasion were to take place, it would not entirely be without precedent. The British seizure of the Suez Canal, while short-lived, did set a potentially dangerous precedent for such actions in the future.

[AdmiralTDM]

US and russia should have cut a deal and drawn a line in the sand saying * this is yours, and THIS is ours...* and then went and raised holy hell.

[CaptainChewbacca]

US and russia should have cut a deal and drawn a line in the sand saying * this is yours, and THIS is ours...* and then went and raised holy hell.

Yeah, beacuse it worked so well when Germany and Japan did it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Maybe they were saving up until this "project" was affordable.

Not too likely, 1973was before the Suadi's really builtup there military, and while Kuwait had a fair force it was too small to accomplish much. An invasion would have been easy and fairly cheep to pull off, espically since Iranian forces and bases would near certainly be involved.

[Xenophobe3691]

US and russia should have cut a deal and drawn a line in the sand saying * this is yours, and THIS is ours...* and then went and raised holy hell.

Yeah, beacuse it worked so well when Germany and Japan did it.

It worked well when Germany and Russia did it...

[phongn]

Yeah, beacuse it worked so well when Germany and Japan did it.

It worked well when Germany and Russia did it...

Perhaps you have overlooked the minor event known as "Operation Barbarossa"

[Lord MJ]

It's now US policy, that any attempt to restrict the flow of oil into the US is an act of war.

So thus if the middle east ever imposed another embargo on the US, it would be grouds for the US to declare war on the middle east nations, and seize the oil it needs using military force.