Oil and the ISIS: Another US-NATO War on Libya is Imminent
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 05, 2016

Url of this article:

 In 2011, US-led NATO ravaged Africa’s most developed country. Libya remains a cauldron of violence and chaos, now threatened by ISIS.

Washington helped ISIS establish a foothold in Sirte, a jumping off point to expand to other areas – with designs on Libyan oil, perhaps just a matter of time before it seizes control without efforts to stop their forces.

Sirte is a gateway to several major oil fields and refineries further east. ISIS fighters targeted them before, gaining control of some. Its propaganda claims “Sirte will be no less that Raqqa,” its self-declared Syrian capital.

In mid-December, rival Tobruk and Tripoli agreed on the formation of unity governance, despite numerous tribal groups left out, a shaky arrangement at best.

Despite Libyan officials rejecting a US-led bombing campaign and/or ground operation, reports indicate plans to deploy about 1,000 UK special forces on the pretext of combating ISIS – to be joined by thousands more American, French and Italian combat troops.

On Monday, Britain’s Daily Mirror headlined “SAS (special forces) spearhead coalition offensive to halt Islamic State oil snatches in Libya,” saying:

“The (pretext) is to halt the advance of 5,000 (ISIS) extremists who have seized more than a dozen major oil fields, boosting their war coffers” – aiming to capture “Libya’s prize oil refinery at Marsa al Brega,” North Africa’s largest, located between Sirte and Benghazi, giving them virtual control over all Libyan oil if successful.

US-led NATO forces intend operating in Libya illegally – without government or Security Council authorization.

A likely bombing campaign is imminent, involving US-led warplanes, creating greater violence and turmoil than already – supporting, not combating ISIS, replicating what’s ongoing in Syria and Iraq, striking infrastructure and government targets, acting as the terrorist group’s air force, the campaign to begin in weeks or sooner.

A senior British military source lied to the Mirror, saying:

“(t)his coalition will provide a wide range of resources from surveillance, to strike operations against Islamic State who have made significant progress in Libya.”

“We have an advance force on the ground who will make an assessment of the situation and identify where attacks should be made and highlight the threats to our forces.”

US-led NATO ravaged and destroyed Libya in 2011 – about to become a bloody battleground again, using ISIS to further Washington’s imperial aims.

The endless ordeal of long-suffering Libyans continues.

A Final Comment

On New Year’s eve, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Washington of waging phony war on ISIS – “imitating the struggle against” it.

Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov said America’s Syrian aerial campaign “for (over) a whole year (failed to notice) convoys of fuel tanker trucks with smuggled oil that feeds the terrorists’ forces.”

“(A)n impression is being created that the US-led coalition is hostage to its politicized approach and is rather imitating the struggle against” ISIS.

“The actions of the US-led anti-ISIL coalition in Syria are in principle illegitimate. The sovereignty of that state is openly violated, as neither the UN Security Council, nor official Damascus gave their permission to bombings of Syria to coalition forces.”

Instead of combating the scourge of ISIS and other terrorist groups, Washington openly aids them – the same scheme now planned for Libya.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Visit his blog site at 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.