he Real Reason for the Coming War Against Iran

[Guest guest]

Z

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:59:26 -0800 (PST)

The Real Reason for the Coming War Against Iran

 

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

 

 

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging

Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

 

by William Clark

 

 

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

 

 

" Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the

most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every

other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and

taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination

of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of

continual warfare. "

 

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

 

Madison's words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the

American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating

situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for

American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the

Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current

geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond

the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and

likely include a proposed Iranian " petroeuro system " for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to

the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized

but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an

alternative oil transaction currency.

 

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat

from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do

with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining

control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining

the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical

international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former

administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration

entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S.

government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was

partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a

" petroeuro. " However, subsequent events show this strategy to be

fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro

system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.

 

Candidly stated, `Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to

install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military

bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to

petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the

euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the

global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and

oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments –

especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither

are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

 

Indeed, the author's original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly

after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which

confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were

once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly,

this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media

conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but

confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the

crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

 

 

" 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. " [2]

 

Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war,

or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under

President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential

Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have

revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively -

planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.

 

 

 

" Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating

plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense

Department unit responsible for military planning for the two

troublesome countries is " busier than ever, " an administration

official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an

effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all

contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say

the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration

conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the

countries " … " Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military

commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an

unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route

for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran. "

 

" …administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime

change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms

if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the

administration, mostly labeled " draft " or " working draft " to evade

congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act.

Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq

strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S.

government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to

renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme

horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has

won any backers at the cabinet level. " [3]

 

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.

 

 

 

" I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they

can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is

to bring them the real facts. "

 

- Abraham Lincoln

 

" Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted

with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to

attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. "

 

- Thomas Jefferson

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

[1] " Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A

Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth, "

January 2003 (updated January 2004)

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

 

[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, " Iraq returns to the international

oil market, " Financial Times, June 5, 2003

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/...

 

[3] " War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a

pre-emptive strike, " Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

 

[4] Shivkumar, C., " Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms, "

The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003).

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.ht\

m

 

[5] Macalister, Terry, " Iran takes on west's control of oil trading, "

The [uK] Guardian, June 16, 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html

 

[6] " US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas, " News Insight: Public

Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004

http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789

 

[7] " Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran, "

Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004)

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588

 

[8] " Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006, " Reuters,

October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

 

[9] " Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran, " ibid.

 

[10] " The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill, "

Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market

Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the

Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the

EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)

http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

 

[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar, " AFP,

June 9, 2003

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm

 

[12] " China to diversify foreign exchange reserves, " China Business

Weekly, May 8, 2004

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm

 

[13] " Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have

terrible consequences, " News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June

11, 2004

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908 & ctg=World

 

[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

 

[15] J.W. Smith, " Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran, " The Institute for

Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html

 

[16] " War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a

pre-emptive strike, " ibid.

 

[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen, " A Preemptive Attack on Iran's

Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences, " Monterry Institute of

International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004)

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

 

[18] Philips, Peter, " Censored 2004, " Project Censored, Seven Stories

Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/

 

Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion

of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

 

 

 

William Clark is the author of an award-winning essay published online

in early 2003 entitled: 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with

Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth.'

 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html , also published

by Global Research at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA302A.html This essay received

a 2003 `Project Censored' award, and was published in the book,

Censored 2004) [18] This pre-war essay hypothesized that Saddam sealed

his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer

going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's oil-for-food

program, and switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export transaction currency.

 

Note: Below is a description of this author's upcoming book:

(Available spring 2005.)

 

Petrodollar Warfare

Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar

William Clark

 

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency

war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged

weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the

invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent

peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.

 

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after

which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq,

possessing the world's second largest oil reserves, was therefore

already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the

fact that Iraq had switched its oil transaction currency to euros --

rather than U.S. dollars -- the Bush administration's unreported aim

was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an

alternative oil transaction currency standard.

 

Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar

hegemony and the unsustainable macroeconomics of 'petrodollar

recycling,' pointing out that the issues underlying the Iraq war also

apply to geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and other countries

including the European Union (E.U.), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The

author warns that without changing course, the American Experiment

will end the way all empires end - with military over-extension and

subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of

both energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to

create a more balanced global energy and monetary system thereby

reducing the possibility of future oil-depletion and oil

currency-related warfare.

 

A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism, Petrodollar

Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global

political economy.

 

 

 

Email this article to a friend

 

To become a Member of Global Research

 

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at

Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

 

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at

www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global

Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof,

on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the

article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .

For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of

the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be

displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the

original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of

Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including

commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor

 

For media inquiries: crgeditor

 

© Copyright WILLIAM CLARK, CRG 2004.

 

 

 

www.globalresearch.ca