|
Is all the talk about a nuclear Iran is in reality an attempt by the US to scare Iran out of establishing their Petroeuro based oil Bourse?
The Petrodollar is the Achilles heel of the United States of America ... and all it will take to send the US over the edge is for countries that have been either bullied or bombed (or both) by the US to band together and dump the Petrodollar and to demand payment for their oil in Petroeuros instead.
Read full article here >
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
- Thomas Jefferson
Therefore the Patriot Act requires that you speak out.
"Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the [Iranian] regime"
Download
Visit Site
So what are those threats, exactly?
The United States will not shy away from preemptively attacking regimes it considers to be hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House confirmed this week (March 2006) when it released President Bush's 2nd term National Security Strategy document.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger to the U.S.
The exact nature of the "danger" is not specified however, other than a view put forward that Iran has "chosen to
be an enemy of freedom, justice, and peace".
No evidence is put forward to support the statement that completely ignores the fact that Iran has a democratically elected government, is a willing signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has never in its history preemptively attacked any of its neighbours.
The US administration suggests however that regimes such as this
must be "held to account".
It's also worthwhile noting that the policy document puts forward a U.S. preference for "transformational diplomacy" and coalition building, but not necessarily within the frameworks of the United Nations or Nato. Simply stated, the traditional Rule of Law need not necessarily apply.
Wading through the usual and fully expected rhetoric reveals perhaps the true nature of the "danger" mentioned above:
"we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their [Iran's] bad conduct. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime".
This simple sentence identifies Iran as an economic threat to the United States...
But what economic threat does Iran present exactly?
The purpose of this site is simply to bring together information that is already scattered throughout the web, into one place. Information that has gone largely and purposely unreported by the U.S. media and government. Information that reveals the simple yet shocking answer to the Iraq (and soon to be Iranian) enigma. The wars (both physical and of words) being waged are, for the large part, oil currency wars.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein used his one and only weapon of mass destruction against the US. It was an economic WMD: he converted his $10bn oil-for-food account from dollars to the competing euro currency, and more importantly switched from trading Iraqi oil for dollars to selling it in euros.
Within 3 months of the U.S. led invasion, the account (which had appreciated substantially in value due to the weak dollar) was converted back to dollars (immediately de-valuing it for the (liberated) Iraqi people by some 16%), oil was resumed trading in dollars, and President Bush appeared on an aircraft carrier to proclaim "mission accomplished".
The European Union imports more oil from OPEC producing countries than does the United States. No Iranian oil is purchased by the U.S. The EU also accounts for 45% of all exports sold to the Middle East. Therefore it makes perfect economic sense that such trading is conducted in euros.
However on March 20th Iran commits the same 'cardinal sin' of cutting the dollar out of the middle-man role in these transactions when it implements a new pricing mechanism for oil in the euro currency, for its European neighbours.
"we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their [Iran's] bad conduct"
U.S. Administration, March 2006
Essential Reading: Oil, Dollars, Euros, and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse - pdf
I leave you with one thought on this 'welcome' page before you dive off into the Iran and Iraq links:
Based on the following pattern of behaviour, which one of the following 3 countries would you say had demonstrated and deserved the benefit of trust from the international community with regards to their nuclear ambitions:?
- Country A, that has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), has not developed a nuclear weapon and has stated that it has neither the need nor desire to do so.
- Country B, that has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) but is actively engaged in developing tactical 'battlefield' nuclear weapons. It has also downgraded certain 'low-yield' nuclear weapons to the point that they consider them to be part of their conventional military arsenal, or
- Country C, that has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, spends more per head of population on its military than any other nation in the world and has secretly developed a substantial nuclear weapons capability - all without allowing one single IAEA weapons inspector to ever set foot in the country.
Traditional logic would seem to indicate that country A was the most trustworthy nation... yet
Country C = Israel, which considers itself "vulnerable" and in need of protection by
Country B = United States, using "whatever means necessary" against
Country A = Iran, the only country of the 3 that does not have nuclear weapons and has never launched a pre-emptive attack on any other another country or state.
We do indeed live in different, non-traditional times.
See also Links page.
| 
