The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target

[the croc]

I was at a talk on peak oil the other night, and the speaker said something I found very interesting. Oil is by far the most important commodity in the the world, when oil is cheap so is everything else and when it is expensive prices for everything rise. Now the reason that the US dollar can run at such a high deficit is because there are only two markets that oil can be traded on, one in the US and one in the UK, but these both work using US dollars. So any country wanting to buy oil has to buy US dollars first, which makes US currency very powerful. Without trading in oil the US economy as it stands at the moment would collapse overnight.

In 2000 Iraq made moves to create a new trading market, except the trading currency would be Euros, not US dollars. This seriously threatened the US economy and so moves were made to remove Saddam and at the same time remove the Euro oil trading scheme. Two birds with one stone if you like. And this is why the US won't leave Iraq anytime soon, because the oil reserves are too important.

Now since about 2005 Iran has been trying to finish what Iraq never could, ie the Euro oil trading scheme. This has again seriously threatened the US power regime, and hence why noises are being made about military action being taken against Iran. It has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear capability, and everything to do with oil.

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Could the proposed Iranian oil bourse (IOB) become the catalyst for a significant blow to the influential position the US dollar enjoys? Manifold supply fears have driven the price of crude oil to its recent high of US$67.10 - only a notch below its highest price in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels, it becomes apparent that sellers and purchasers of the black gold are looking into all ways that could lead to a financial improvement on their respective sides.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Irans nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian petroeuro system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of petrodollar recycling and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[CowzOr]

I thought Iraq had actually managed to briefly change to trading in Euros but then was switched back after the US took over.. same end result either way

[the croc]

Yeah they did. Theres some more stuff about it here:

In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq's oil for food account at the UN was also in euros and Iraq later converted its $10 billion reserve fund at the UN to euros. Several other oil producing countries have also agreed to sell oil in euros-Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Indonesia, and Malaysia (soon to join this group). In July 2003, China announced that it would switch part of its dollar reserves into the world's emerging "reserve currency" (the euro).

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html

[snuff]

Their whole mid east strat is a flex of power to the EU.

Be interesting to see if the NAU ever happens...

[Matt]

Nice links, croc - cheers for the post! Some good reading there.

[the croc]

No worries Matt, it's good to know it's appreciated!

It certainly will be difficult for the US to attack Iran (in terms of both public support and Democrats control of the house) which is why I can see preemptive strikes by Israel as possible which would then serve as a free ticket of entry for the US. Israel bombed a unverified nuclear facility in Syria just a few weeks ago. I could definitely see something similar happening in Iran.

Theres no doubt that protecting markets and securing oil interests were the main motivations for entering Iraq, collateral damage was inconsequential. It looks like it will be the same story for Iran.

If anyone thinks this is far fetched, just look at the original signatories to Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and how many of them hold influence or have been/are in the current administration. It's pretty telling of the US administrations policies since Bush got in. Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Scooter Libby, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz have all held or currently hold high level positions in the Bush administration.

Some of the stated aims of PNAC are:

"North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."

"Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Positions

[puppykicker]

It certainly will be difficult for the US to attack Iran (in terms of both public support and Democrats control of the house) which is why I can see preemptive strikes by Israel as possible

er, since when did public support make any difference to the US? as for the dems, they won on a promise to get out of iraq, almost a year later and what have they acheived? they cant even pass a non-binding meaningless bill to express their displeasure.

they will go in whenever they feel like it, probably under the banner of protecting the troops in iraq, by bombing the revolutionary guards camps etc near the border, thatll provoke a retalliation from iran and then its on. theyve already got this underway according to the intertubes, theyve had to move the focus away from the nuke thing because i guess they figure it wont work a seccond time

from what ive read around the place (fuck knows how much of it was true) cheneys already decided they are going in, condi doesnt want to, and bush is on condis side for the time being, rumor has it she says she will resign if they do it. as soon as bush decides to side with cheney its all over.

[Irate Squirell]

Condi might just get "collin powelled" perhaps.

[snuff]

Fuck I'm real suprised that Israel admitted to their airstrikes... I guess leaving fuel tanks behind was a tad obvious though!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7024287.stm

[the croc]

Bolton: Attack Iran, Terminate Leader, Change Regime

October 2nd, 2007

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.

"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.

Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.

"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".

http://www.scoopit.co.nz/story.php?titl ... nge-Regime

[chrisbucks]

Totally off topic, but ... fuck. croc your sig picture wins the world. I want that as a fullsized painting in my living room...

[snuff]

A good mate of mine wrote a letter to Broadcasting Standards Authority last week over TV3's coverage of Ahmanejad's visit to the US.

They introduced a piece with his face superimposed over an image of the second plane hitting a smoking Twin Towers. The article had nothing to do with this, didn't even mention his attempted visit to Ground Zero.

Not only did it breach four BSA standards, its chilling evidence NZ media has joined Fox's propaganda war on Iran.

[the croc]

A good mate of mine wrote a letter to Broadcasting Standards Authority last week over TV3's coverage of Ahmanejad's visit to the US.

They introduced a piece with his face superimposed over an image of the second plane hitting a smoking Twin Towers. The article had nothing to do with this, didn't even mention his attempted visit to Ground Zero.

Not only did it breach four BSA standards, its chilling evidence NZ media has joined Fox's propaganda war on Iran.

I didn't see that but pretty amazing that they bothered trying to pull it off in New Zealand.

Back in 2006 when Bolton was still US ambassador to UN he was linking Iran to 9/11.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, Wednesday compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”

Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.

It's exactly the same tactic they used with Iraq and 9/11 and that worked a treat.

[the croc]

A few more recent stories from UK Telegraph

US 'must break Iran and Syria regimes' 05/10/2007

Britain 'on board' for US strikes on Iran 09/10/2007

[Res]

Nice links, croc - cheers for the post! Some good reading there.

[kimura]

this site here has updates every 5 mins on mass media from all internet sourced media outlets from most nations- even iran.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=US%2FIran

us/iran relations

it is likely isreal will bear the blunt of any incursion into iran, but it seems the US is prepared to use the air force and navys capabilities in the region (multiple aircraft carriers)
in a modernday operation rolling thunder(vietnam blanket bombing)

aswell as the use of special forces ,while isreals provides the infantry and bears the blunt of the invasion.

the usa with its troops deployed in afganistan and iraq cant spare massive numbers of troops in iran especially for an occupation long term as with the last 3 invasions


GOODNEWS is that iran has signed a deal with other nearby nations (including russia) "to invade iran would be to invade russia" vladmir putin.

[Fearful_Jesuit]

this site here has updates every 5 mins on mass media from all internet sourced media outlets from most nations- even iran.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=US%2FIran

us/iran relations

it is likely isreal will bear the blunt of any incursion into iran, but it seems the US is prepared to use the air force and navys capabilities in the region (multiple aircraft carriers)
in a modernday operation rolling thunder(vietnam blanket bombing)

aswell as the use of special forces ,while isreals provides the infantry and bears the blunt of the invasion.

the usa with its troops deployed in afganistan and iraq cant spare massive numbers of troops in iran especially for an occupation long term as with the last 3 invasions


GOODNEWS is that iran has signed a deal with other nearby nations (including russia) "to invade iran would be to invade russia" vladmir putin.

[kimura]

yes.