ISIS Fighters in Iraq Making It About Oil, Attack Oil Refinery, Gas Prices Already Up

Take control of refinery responsible for 25 percent of domestic consumption


Last night fighters from the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) waged an attack on the Beiji refinery, 155 miles north of Baghdad, that continued into the morning. An official at the refinery said the attackers had taken control of what amounts to "75 percent of the refinery." The refinery is responsible for about a quarter of the country's refining capacity but is dedicated exclusively to domestic demand. It was reportedly closed last week as ISIS fighters advanced in the area. An extended disruption would create gas and electricity shortages, exacerbating the chaos in Iraq. Earlier today, the Iraqi government insisted it had repelled the attack on Beiji, with a military spokesperson claiming 40 militants had been killed.

ISIS fighters haven't yet disrupted Iraq's production of oil for foreign consumption, but if they're interested in dragging western nations into their conflict they may well be planning it. The price of oil and gas has already spiked in anticipation of such a disruption. Many opponents of the U.S. war in Iraq pointed to oil as the real reason it was waged, and ISIS may well be interested in getting the U.S. back into Iraq—such an intervention could help ISIS make the case that Iraq's government is weak and illegitimate, and that they provide a better alternative that can also resist American encroachment.

In the meantime, President Obama has deployed 275 military service members to Iraq which the White House insists shouldn't be considered "combat troops," despite the fact that the troops are almost certainly being placed in harm's way. The troops will "provide support and security" for U.S. personnel and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, at 4.7 million square feet the largest in the world. The president is also reportedly considering an aerial bombing campaign to target insurgents in Iraq, one that might look something like the ongoing drone campaign in Yemen. Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, reportedly asked the Obama administration for such airstrikes secretly last month. Since being re-elected yet again in April, al-Maliki has still been unable to form a new government.

NEXT: WikiLeaks to Release 'Very Important Secret Document' Tomorrow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. God, how much longer can the US government be all out retarded when it comes to Iraq?

    1. “God, how much longer can the US government be all out retarded…”

      You could have just stopped there. And your answer is stupidity is infinite.

    2. As long as the war profiteers (i.e., oil companies and those “lobbied” by them) keep making money. I’ve been saying since day-1 that the war in Iraq is about oil–9/11 was just a convenient excuse. Now that ISIS controls the oil refineries (so they say), the money will stop flowing our way and our esteemed leaders will finally get us the hell out of these shit holes.

      1. Iraq is the cradle of civilization and had a fully developed culture before the Europeans had dragged themselves out of the mud, and LONG before they “discovered” the continent I assume you live on… and turned it into a shithole, as you later did to Iraq.

        1. Gene, I like your quotes around the word “discovered”. Nowadays we would call wiping out an entire native American population to acquire their land genocide. That said, America has lots of shitheads but its not a shithole, especially compared to the quality of life of the average Iraqi. Iraq was a shithole before our troops ever touched the ground over there.

        2. So you’re saying, “All Roads Lead to Babylon”?

  2. What if the U.S. Government/Current Administration suddenly (or not so suddenly) announced that they/we are not going to do anything about the situation in Iraq, no matter what happens? What if we simply closed our embassy in Iraq and wrote the entire country off as a big, bad mistake? What if? That’s probably not going to happen, but what if the U.S. actually did that? What if the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan completely, right now? That’s probably not going to happen either. Too bad, because we would probably be better off if we did.

    Our entire involvement in these armpit, stink hole places was predicated on the 9/11 attacks. And yet, the U.S. is no more immune to another such attack now, than it was in 2001. A large piece of propaganda promulgated by the Bush administration is that if U.S. forces were/are there, the terrorists won’t attack here. Lots and lots of people probably sucked that up. It was designed as part of the excuses offered when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. really needs to get the hell out of the Middle East, but that probably isn’t going to happen any time soon. What a shame that we have to be bogged down in these damn places, or think we have to be bogged down in them.

    1. Permanent war keeps focus off of domestic issues. War is Peace.

    2. Last post. Promise.

      1. mpispolitics,

        Sorry, changed my mind. I plan to keep on posting. Thanks anyway.

      2. You lie, you lie…

    3. Then you further embolden the enemies further while losing what few allies you had left there.

      Maybe you want us to keep diplomatic relations with these countries while pulling out all our troops and personnel. But as the current Iraq situation proves, that won’t be easy to do. If Obama offered to send in 2000 temporary troops to save Iraq, their politicians wouldn’t mind that as much as they before.

      Al Qaida can hit us whether we’re engaged in the middle east or not. Come on, we can’t stop some random lunatic from shooting up kids in a school. They try to recruit American airheads and the FBI stopped them consistently – until the Boston bombing.

      As sure as I’m sitting here, we’re gonna get hit. 300 plus mil population, easier integration, detached society, porous border, and generous support structure. The only question is, how big it will be.

      1. XM,

        You have a good point. Well written and informative. Unlike some of the nonsense that is posted on this site.

    4. Another one. It hasn’t ever occurred to you that it’s your country that turned these places into stinkholes? Not to mention killing a few million innocent civilians, and leaving behind enough depleted uranium to destory the health of the next few generations.

      1. Gene Poole,

        Very good point. Lots of truth there. Hard to argue with.

        Thanks for the post

      2. Seems like you suffer from a Monomaniacal Syndrome. You believe the US controls everything, and if you were in charge everybody would be alright.

        Kenny Loggins.

  3. OT: US Patent Office revokes all Redskins trademarks, claiming that they are ‘disparaging.’…..-trademark

    1. The government giveth, and it taketh away.

    2. The Oneida Nation claims it is disparaging. No quotes needed.

  4. The price of oil is rising because the normally serene Middle East is experiencing a never heard of wave of Islamic terror. The next attack will be by Osiris flying a Malaysian airline. The US used to have some standards. Even Nixon didn’t try to use the Gulf of Tonkin twice.

    1. Nixon didn’t try to use it even once – that was LBJ’s scam.

      1. Yep, poorly phrased that didn’t I, Sasob. “Straffinrun goes back to remedial English class”.

  5. International Society of Imbred Statists?

    1. International Society of Inbred pSychopaths

  6. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out

  7. My Middle East policy: the US subs out the war on terror to Iran. The strategic advantage of our military is such that we are wasting it by putting out small fires all over the place, when it would be much better just to point our guns at Iran, with the ultimatum that they will cease to sponsor terrorism, and that they themselves will now be charged with the duty of eradicating any groups who initiate violence and coercion in the name of Islam. We would receive weekly reports of their progress, and they would have to answer for any attacks against American interests.

    We’d have to go beat them into submission every once in a while, but that wouldn’t take much; however, the endless beating around the bush ends with my policy, since it would end all these stupid little skirmishes in every backwater. The answer to aggression is neither appeasement nor to pretend that it isn’t happening: it is to get straight in the face of who’s really behind it and correct them firmly.

    Plus, I bet that my policy would be the most effective at shutting those groups down without war. You’d cut off their money (to a large extent), but it would also force the people of Muslim nations to look squarely at Jihadist thuggery and decide whether it was still worth it, when you’ve got Iranian soldiers fighting militant Islamists. It’s time to flip the script on these bastards, and pursue a course of ruthless American self-interest.

  8. Trouble with snail journalism, good on depth, lousy on timliness. Prices went up, dropped within a few days.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.