De geopolitieke redenen voor de oorlog in Irak?

quote:

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth

by William Clark

Summary

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

Website: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
Essay (PDF): http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.pdf

quote:

The US and Eurasia: End Game for the Industrial Era?

by Richard Heinberg

Summary

With the dawn of the 21st century the world has entered a new stage of geopolitical struggle. The first half of the 20th century can be understood as one long war between Britain (and shifting allies) and Germany (and shifting allies) for European supremacy. The second half of the century was dominated by a Cold War between the US, which emerged as the world's foremost industrial-military power following World War II, and the Soviet Union and its bloc of protectorates. The US wars in Afghanistan (in 2001-2002) and Iraq (which, counting economic sanctions and periodic bombings, has continued from 1990 to the present) have ushered in the latest stage, which promises to be the final geopolitical struggle of the industrial period - a struggle for the control of Eurasia and its energy resources.

My purpose here is to sketch the general outlines of this culminating chapter of history as it is currently being played out.

First, it is necessary to discuss geopolitics in general, and from a historical perspective, in relation to resources, geography, military technology, national currencies, and the psychology of its practitioners.

Website: http://www.museletter.com/
Artikel: http://www.museletter.com/archive/132.html

quote:

Fuel Prices, Oil Peak, Oil Currency & Iraq - Geostrategy of US Imperialism

Mark Scott

Previously I stated that high fuel prices were related to the bourgeoisie's ability to manipulate the market for maximum profits which is the impetus of capitalism. The dialectics of this antagonism is that it is not a singular contradiction but is in fact bound up with other contradictions that will culminate into a new stage of development leading to a new qualitative state. Contradiction is the driving force of change and if we want to understand how things change and then be able to control and utilze these changes we must understand the difference in contradictions. This process of development, oil and US imperialism, contains many contradictions and in order to fully understand this process of change we must first grasp the basic contradiction. A mechanistic understanding tells us that US imperialism is after the oil, it also seperates the interpenetration of contradictions by telling us that US imperialism seeks the geopolitical interests of advanced military bases, etc. While these contradictions are true, they are not the basic contradiction in these
particular process as each process has its own dialectic which can only be understood by a detailed study of the given particular process. Therefore, given the dialectics of this issue we are discussing it is impossible to seperate the results of the interpenetrating contradictions and we must look at how all of the various contradictions relate to and influence each other.

Artikel: http://www.mail-archive.c(...)ah.edu/msg04393.html

quote:

Op donderdag 15 december 2005 00:00 schreef LXIV het volgende:

[..]

Misschien ken je het mopje van de vent die zijn sleutels kwijt was.
Een man loopt onder een lantaarnpaal iets te zoeken.
Een andere man vraagt hem wat hij zoekt.
"Mijn sleutels", zegt de ene man. "Die ben ik nét daar ginds verloren."
"Waarom zoek je dan hier?" vraagt de andere man verbaasd.
"Omdat het ginds zo donker is, en hier is het licht"

(Geen dijenkletser maar toch geschikt als illustratie)

De aanval op Irak heeft geen direct oorzakelijk verband met 9-11. Wél wilden de Amerikanen graag Irak binnenvallen, grotendeels om de door jou geschetste redenen. De strijd tegen het terrorisme, (of waren het massavernietigingswapens ) zijn gebruikt als een stok om een hond mee te slaan.

quote:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." " - paul Wolfowitz

quote:

BBC Money Programme - The War for Oil

The advocates of war insist it's not about oil. But global oil production is on the brink of terminal decline and when the West begins to run short of supplies - Iraq could be a lifeline.

Uitzending: BBC Money Programme - The War for Oil
Website: http://www.thedossier.uko(...)GRAMME_Oil%20War.htm

quote:

- Half of the world's oil has been, or is about to be, exhausted.

- Once that midpoint is crossed, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, and more expensive, as demand grows. Controlling the last remaining oil reserves is the key to controlling the world.

- Almost everything in modern society - vehicles, buildings, bridges, weapons, consumer products, and much more - consumes oil in its manufacture, its operation, or both.

- Cheap and abundant hydrocarbon energy keeps the industrial world warm and cooks our food. Most houses are heated with natural gas.

- We "eat" oil and natural gas: For every 1-calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy is consumed.

- Four days after becoming Vice President, Dick Cheney convened his National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) in which he received extensive information on Peak Oil from world-renowned experts. He has refused to release the documents from those hearings to Congress or the American people.

- Dick Cheney knew about Peak Oil at least as early as 1999. He knows the economic impact of oil depletion and the catastrophic effects that will result.

- 9/11 made possible what Dick Cheney called, "The war that won't end in our lifetimes." This is a war that is chasing the last remaining hydrocarbons across the globe. The "war on terror" is in reality an energy war and 9/11 was its pretext.

quote:

Op zondag 18 december 2005 18:48 schreef merlin693 het volgende:
dank je voor het leesvoer OpenYourMind (sommige kende ik nog niet )

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 december 2005 08:55 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Zou ik vreemd vinden, Iran, Rusland Kazachstan en China (in eerste instantie onderling) willen of maken ook geen gebruik meer van de dollar, in het geval van Iran is het de Euro geworden. Nu lees je hier regelmatig dat de VS nog wel meer invasieplannen zou hebben maar zelfs een invasie in Iran zit er op korte termijn niet in, laat staan Rusland of China.

Waarom is Noordzeeolie eigenlijk nog in Dollars?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 december 2005 12:56 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Sinds 2003 wenst Iran in Euro's betaald te worden, aangezien de VS geen handel drijft met Iran en vice verca heeft dit nu nog weinig invloed maar als de Iraanse Oliebeurs van start gaat in maart 2006 kan dit wel van invloed zijn op de dollar.

bron in het Belgisch :http://www.uitpers.be/artikel_view.php?id=1129

en Engels http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
(hier ook nog een stukje over Rusland en China die ook aan het uitzoeken zijn of het verstandig is om olie in euro's af te rekenen)

quote:

'Leger Israël bereidt zich voor op acties tegen Iran'

JERUZALEM/LONDEN - De Israëlische premier Sharon heeft het leger opdracht gegeven voorbereidingen te treffen voor mogelijke acties tegen geheime locaties in Iran waar uranium wordt verrijkt. Militaire bronnen stelden in de Britse krant The Sunday Times dat die Israëlische aanvallen wellicht eind maart zullen plaatshebben.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/640(...)ies_tegen_Iran'.html

quote:

Maar toch vind ik nog steeds de reden om voor de olie naar Irak te gaan geen goed argument. Zoals de VS dit gedaan heeft is het niet echt economisch rendabel.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 december 2005 15:43 schreef Chewie het volgende:
Volgens de Europese Commissie zijn nu al Gas,Nucleaire energie en zelfs windenergie rendabeler (bron safe, blad voor beleggers Robeco, interessant artikel zal kijken of ik deze in kan scannen) als energiebron. Kosten van olie per kilowatt-uur bij installaties die 7000 uur draaien minimaal 7,5 c en maximaal 16,1c, bij kernenergie is dit 3,7 minimaal en 6,6 max en wind 6,25 en 7,45.
Meeste landen in Latijns-Amerika kunnen prima samenwerken met de VS. China, Rusland hebben ook geen belang bij verslechterde relaties met de VS net zoals de EU.

quote:

In physics and energy economics, EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is the ratio between the amount of energy expended to obtain a resource, compared with the amount of energy obtained from that resource. When the EROEI of a resource becomes 1 or less, that energy source becomes an energy sink and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy.

For example, when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about 3 in the US (and about 10 in Saudi Arabia).

Bron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

quote:

Meeste landen in Latijns-Amerika kunnen prima samenwerken met de VS. China, Rusland hebben ook geen belang bij verslechterde relaties met de VS net zoals de EU.
[..]

Geen enkele "grootmacht" zit te wachten op een wereldoorlog zelfs niet als de olie op dreigt te raken. Door te wijzen op PNAC zou je kunnen concluderen dat de VS dit niet zo schuwen maar op die studie is zelfs binnen de republikeinen veel kritiek op en dan voornamelijk van de echte conservatieven.

quote:

The Anglo-American War of Terror: An Overview

by Michel Chossudovsky


Introduction

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity.

An understanding of the underlying historical background is crucial. This war agenda is not the product of a distinct neo-conservative project. From the outset of the Cold War Era, there is a consistent thread, a continuum in US military doctrine, from the "Truman doctrine" to Bush's "war on terrorism".

Foreign Policy adviser George F. Kennan had outlined in a 1948 State Department brief what was later described as the "'Truman doctrine."

What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. In this regard, the Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a post World War II foreign policy framework. The latter has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military interventions in all major regions of the World. From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine" at the outset of the Cold War.

Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.

Moreover, Kennan's writings pointed to the formation of an Anglo-American alliance, which currently characterizes the close relationship between Washington and London. This alliance responds to powerful economic interests in the oil industry, defense and international banking. It is, in many regards, an Anglo-American extension of the British Empire, which was officially disbanded in the wake of the Second World War.

The Truman doctrine also points to the inclusion of Canada in the Anglo-American military axis. Moreover, Kennan had also underscored the importance of preventing the development of a continental European power that could compete with the US.

With regard to Asia, including China and India, Kennan hinted to the importance of articulating a military solution:

"The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better"


[...]


The "War on Terrorism"

Amply documented, the war on terrorism is a fabrication. Al Qaeda is a US sponsored "intelligence asset". Saudi-born Osama bin Laden is a creation of U.S. foreign policy. He was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders." During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA — using Pakistan’s Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between —played a key role in training the Mujahideen.

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad. (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999)

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have supported the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their military-intelligence agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.

Ironically, the U.S. Administration’s undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia were fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997 accused the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment, through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network", of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

The Clinton administration’s ‘hands-on’ involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials … the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. (Congressional Press Release, Republican, Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997. The original document is on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm [emphasis added].


Counter-Terrorism

The CIA has created it own terrorist organizations including "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations, which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations.

Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America."

The underlying objective is to galvanize public opinion in support of America's war on terrorism" agenda.

The "war on terrorism" requires a humanitarian mandate. The war on terrorism is presented as a "Just War", which is to be fought on moral grounds "to redress a wrong suffered."

To reach its foreign policy objectives, the images of terrorism must remain vivid in the minds of the citizens, who are constantly reminded of the terrorist threat.

The propaganda campaign presents the portraits of the leaders behind the terror network. In other words, at the level of what constitutes an "advertising" campaign, "it gives a face to terror."

quote:

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

by William Clark (27 October 2004)

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

[...]

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]

Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).

Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:

"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange."

"…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way."

"…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]

It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.

"The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in."

"….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations."

"While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact." [6]

Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.

"Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.

He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." [7]

(Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.

"Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."

"Others familiar with Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."

"…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]

One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for ¤37 - ¤40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).

The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).

The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.

"The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."

"…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."

"….If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."

"There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all." [13]

It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.

Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.

A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.

"NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]

Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:

"Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."

"…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. " [17]

Synopsis

Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.

This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.

Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.

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

quote:

Op donderdag 29 december 2005 02:39 schreef merlin693 het volgende:
[off topic] OpenYourMind ..heb je voor mij nog een link naar de "le cercle" draad..heb wat intersante info

quote:

"Denial Stops Here: From 9-11 to Peak Oil and Beyond"

Michael C. Ruppert's first original DVD since the landmark Truth and Lies of 9-11!

Listen and watch Mike Ruppert discuss:

The 9-11 cover-up

Peak Oil

The War in Iraq

Economic turmoil and accountability

World events relating to oil

Sustainability and the importance of community reliance

quote:

Op maandag 2 januari 2006 20:48 schreef okee6 het volgende:

[..]

Jij mag er best in geloven, ik vind dat wel erg koker kijken. Irak was de meest opzichtige Amerikaanse operatie sinds 11 september, er waren er meer. Maar goed, qua Irak, olie is in mijn ogen dan enkel betrokken vanwege de torenhoge inkomsten die Irak er uit 'had'. Dat geld kon verkeerd terecht komen, dat was een belangrijke factor in mijn ogen. Politiek en electoraal gezien kon Bush Jr. door op te treden afmaken wat zijn vader had nagelaten, ook niet onbelangrijk. Zijn zakenpartners en tevens belangrijke handelspartners van Amerika waren gebaat bij de verwijdering van een potentieel militair zwaargewicht in het centrum van het Midden Oosten.
Weinig te verliezen dus al met al. De kosten van de oorlog zouden goeddeels worden gedekt door het opbloeien van de Amerikaanse industrie, dat in een dip verzeild dreigde te raken.

quote:

Echter vergiste Amerika zich in de lengte van de operatie en de mate van bondgenootschap in de rest van de wereld. Wat dat betreft doet Bush meer kwaad aan de politieke kaart dan hem waard is. Zakelijk gezien hoeft het echter geen ramp te betekenen. Indien er werkelijk een staat binnen de Verenigde Staten is, een netwerk van grootindustriëlen, dan is er nog steeds niet echt sprake van falen. Wijdverbreide democratie zou dan voorwaarde zijn voor hun systeem.

quote:

Waar baseer je deze verdeling op? De EU lijkt niet eensgezind, maar is dat wel degelijk. Middels de NAVO blijven EU+Oostblok voorts goede gesprekspartner van Noord-Amerika. Latijns-Amerika produceert natuurlijk geweldig (landbouw/delfstoffen), maar heeft geen sterke papieren, want is politiek meer verdeeld. Ik meen dat Noord-Amerika indien nodig zelfs militaristisch een herziene NAFTA zal afdwingen. Opstandige linkse leiders zullen als vanouds onderhands getackled worden. Zo lang de Aziaten en Arabieren maar geld naar Amerika blijven schuiven, kan het aan zet blijven. Het heeft immers ook een grotere interne markt dan de overige blokken. China lijkt dan wel een reus, maar democratie staat er in de kinderschoenen en milieu problemen zullen het land de das om. Japan is vooralsnog bezig het hachje te redden. Het land blaast door zijn werkerscultuurtje en moderne industrie een deuntje mee, maar ontbeert nog altijd eigen delfstoffen en nabije strategische partners. Die afhankelijkheid maakt het verzoenbaar met de westerse alliantie. En Israël tenslotte bezorgt veel landen hoofdpijn. Het blijft een stressfactor in de regio, wat er ook van wordt.

quote:

Populair is inderdaad dat Rusland, China en Iran goed samen zouden kunnen. Maar India en Pakistan wisselen ook gewoon delfstoffen met Iran uit, dus hoezo alliantie? Dit is strikt naar olie toegerekend. Olie is niet een delfstof voor de toekomst.

quote:

_{en in het hele plaatje komt Afrika weer niet voor, nog steeds te oninteressant om in te gaan vechten}

quote:

"The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions
from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)"

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

quote:

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime."

"Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China."

quote:

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You’d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there’d surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. "

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar’s role as reserve currency. This
doesn’t mean that the U.S. couldn’t function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be
gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and
the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

quote:

"A new world is being created. Ironically, the most troublesome clash of civilizations in it may not
be the one the academics expected: not Islamic fundamentalists vs. the West in the first instance,
but the United States against Europe.

To oversimplify, but only slightly, it’s the dollar vs. the euro.

. . . The Europeans and the United Nations want the inspections regime to resume because as long
as it is in place, the U.N. "oil-for-food" program remains in effect. Not only does France benefit
directly-its banks hold the deposits and its companies have been involved in the oil sales-the
entire EU does as well, if for no other reason than many of the recent sales were counted not in
dollars but in euros. The United Nations benefits because it has collected more than a billion
dollars in fees for administering the program. As long as the 1990 sanctions remain in effect, Iraq
can’t "legally" sell its oil on the world market. At least, to this point, tankers won’t load it without
U.N. permission, because they can’t get insurance for doing so.

Sometime in the next few weeks, push will come to shove. There are storage tanks full of Iraqi
crude waiting in Turkish ports. For now, Rumsfeld and Powell are playing "bad cop, bad cop."
"This isn’t on the president’s radar screen right now," an aide told me. "Powell is totally on board,
though. He is as angry at the French as anyone else, maybe more. There may come a time when
the smart thing to do is turn the whole Iraq situation over to the U.N. This is not that time."
Meanwhile, if the rest of the world tries to block any and all Iraq oil sales, it’s possible that American companies will find a way to become the customer of first and last resort.

And we’ll pay in dollars."

- "In Round 2, it’s the dollar vs. euro," Newsweek, April 23, 2003

quote:

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales -- despite the greenback’s recent fall in value.

Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq’s recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar."

- Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003

quote:

European Commentary on the Essay: ‘The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq’

To finish, in January 2003, Mr. Coílín Nunan reviewed a draft of my essay on an Internet
forum. He subsequently published an exceptional summary on an Irish website
( www.feasta.org ). Hopefully our efforts will facilitate public awareness, and stimulate a
more honest debate on the Iraq issues. Below are excerpts from his informative article "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq."

"One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the
euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get
something for nothing.

"This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their
annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves
from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost
Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them,
the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign
countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their
dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt,
burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as
it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to
mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more
reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

"There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most
important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised
economies. If you don’t have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the
international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed
to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to
become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time
you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the
US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had
dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars -- the US.

"If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a
moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be
over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over
80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar
assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidizer of the US because it holds so many dollar
investments). The US on the other hand, being the world’s largest oil importer would have, to run
a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to
be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic
supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

"The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very
strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily indebted to the rest of the
world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone
has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East’s main trading partner. And
nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros -- apart, of course, from oil .
. .
"All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that
not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which
perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating
world affairs: military force."

quote:

The Anglo-American Military Axis

by Michel Chossudovsky

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Financial Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London’s decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, with Britain’s pound being torn between the European and the U.S.-dominated currency systems. In other words, two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for the control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defence industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under State jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt — although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union — is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks including Germany’s largest banks and business conglomerates.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State supervision — marked by a close relationship to the U.S. Treasury. Distinct from the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the U.S., which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private interests on Wall Street.


Currency Systems and ‘Economic Conquest’

In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union the Balkans extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the U.S. dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is: German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. That is, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro — rather than to the U.S. dollar — means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany’s hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the U.S. dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The ‘Dollarisation’ of national currencies is an integral part of America’s Silk Road Strategy (SRS). The latter consists in first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China’s Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System — namely, Wall Street — over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an ‘imperial’ scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which is in turn supported by the militarisation of Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have also agreed on "sharing the spoils" — i.e. establishing their respective "spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the policies of ‘partition’ in the late 19th Century, the U.S. and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the U.S. has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e. the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Bron: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html

quote:

Op woensdag 4 januari 2006 01:07 schreef okee6 het volgende:

Onzin. Die fossiele brandstoffen zijn lang zo belangrijk niet meer als vroeger. De importantie is er thans enkel dankzij de expansiedrift in China.

[knip]

Men is er het stilletjes over eens dat op korte termijn kernenergie (rijke landen) en biobrandstoffen (armere landen) een oplossing moeten vormen. Naar gelang de urgentie zal men meer gaan investeren in kernfusie. En ik vertrouw er op dat als de olie en gas voorraden eenmaal substantieel slinken, we ook wel in de kosmos zullen rond gaan snuffelen naar alternatieve bronnen en methoden.
[..]

België en Frankrijk mogen daar toch maar al te vaak de eigen rommel opruimen