Will America reflect, on the 25th anniversary of 9/11, on why the attack happened in the first place?

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the September 11 (9/11) attacks on the United States. On that day, Americans will mourn, but they will also find time to complain about the higher price of petrol caused by yet another war.

Looking at the American media, it becomes clear that the fundamental reason for restraining the use of American military power abroad is not the morality of American voters. And, of course, it is not the morality of those who run the country either. When American warships carrying fighter jets travel to distant regions to bomb and kill people, the most important thing—and perhaps the only thing that matters—is that it should not have a negative impact on Americans.

Taking control of Venezuela’s oil—where military action is accompanied by plunder—is an ideal situation for them. The inflation caused by military action against Iran, however, is not. This month, the United States announced that an American company would be given a 100-year right to 17 oil fields in Venezuela, containing a combined 65 billion barrels of crude oil.

Trump, who considers himself the most honest of American presidents, said that the United States would now “run” Venezuela. The BBC headline read: “US oil deal leaves analysts baffled—and many Venezuelans angry.” Needless to say, very few Americans were angry about it.

Iraq is a textbook example of imperialism. Saddam Hussein was executed 20 years ago. His country was invaded after Americans were made to believe the lie that Iraq was developing a nuclear programme to threaten them.

They have no problem with the same lie being used again to justify killing Iranians. Their main concern is simply that Iran should not interfere with their lives. As one headline put it: “Diesel is the lifeblood of the economy: US prices hit an all-time high of $5.848 per gallon.” Clearly, there was no irony in the use of the word “lifeblood”—and certainly no sense of shame either. Why is Iraq a middle ground? When Iraq was invaded, it was a highly violent country. Yet even today, the United States continues to exercise considerable control over the country without using military force.

Iraq’s oil revenues are controlled by the United States and must be deposited into an Iraqi bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This has been the arrangement since 2003—23 years. Crude oil is Iraq’s most important source of income, accounting for around 90 percent of the country’s budget.

On January 11, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published a report under the headline: “US Warns Iraq It Could Lose Access to Key Bank Account If Troops Are Asked to Leave.” No explanation is really needed to understand what this means. It is worth mentioning, however, that the Iraqis backed down and did not ask the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Does any of this have an impact on Americans or their politics? Absolutely not. In much the same way, Americans rarely think about the deaths of the 500,000 people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A study by Brown University estimates that in the post-9/11 war zones, around 900,000 people have died directly from war-related violence, while another 4.5 million have died indirectly.

The wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and the Philippines have displaced more than 40 million people. When this period is mentioned in political debate, the discussion is usually about the money that was wasted. As the university study notes: “The total cost of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria and elsewhere is approximately $8 trillion. This does not include the future interest on the debt incurred to finance the wars.”