posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:38 AM
This was on the war on terrorism board, written by Chaosrain. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Run-Up to Iran War: Track the Indicators
Okay...I decided not to post this in the news section because, honestly, I'm too lazy at this point to go hunting around the web for the stories
we've probably all read which discuss global events so I'll start with some of what I've noticed and hopefully will find time/energy to hunt down
some sources. Here goes...
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Newcomers:
It's clear that the world is in the process of climbing up Iran's backside about their efforts to develop nuclear technology. What is interesting is
that no one cares about NK's efforts in this regard anymore. Obviously, the NPT bluster that the nuke powers about the globe pull out of their back
pocket to shut down any nations seeking to enter the group without its tacit approval is only used in certain situations to gain political leverage.
It is becoming increasingly clear that abiding by, or forcing other nations to abide by, the NPT is not the true goal of all nuclear nations who use
the NPT as a cudgel to achieve political means. The US has made it clear that they intend to re-design/re-deploy updated warhead designs and it stands
to reason that, supercomputers notwithstandin,g no one's going to bet their tactical future on warheads that have only been tested on silicon.
That'll cause the US to disengage from the NPT (which bans the testing of nuclear devices) in order to test their stockpiles. Ultimately, none of the
NPT signatories will be interested in being the "good guy" vs. the U.S. "bad guy" so the document will become more worthless than the paper on
which it was drafted as each signatory drops from the agreement to re-design and re-deploy their new weapons like dominoes.
Iran and the Bomb:
Though it becomes quite evident that a nation with significant crude reserves has little need for nuclear energy save the tangential output of
weapons-grade material from the enrichment process, it is also clear that as long as the Israelis have the Bomb, everyone in the neighborhood is going
to want one. Iran's already got the carrot (crude) now they'd like a stick too (the Bomb). It makes sense as one sees the inordinate influence on
geo-politics that the nuclear nations bring to the table. Wanting the Bomb and having the Bomb are two completely different things, however, and many
analysts believe that Iran is not exactly a hop, skip and jump from becoming nuclear. Some have contended that such a capability is still a decade off
for Iran even if the IAEA offered no resistance to such efforts.
Some sources have recently contended that the Danish Cartoon protests were manufactured by Saudi Arabia (an "ally" of the US, who apparently took a
page from Dubya's book) in an effort to draw muslim attention away from the recent incident in Saudi Arabia during the hajj. In the same place as it
has always happened, a stampede occurred and over 300 pilgrims were killed. The muslim world has been long frustrated with Saudi Arabia over its
obvious lack of respect and regard for the hajj, evidenced by the nation's massive wealth and the lack of application of that wealth to the
development of a safe and maintainable hajj route. So, Saudi Arabia keeps these three-month-old cartoons in their back pocket to use as a distraction
when the inevitable loss of life occurrs during the hajj. They work closely with muslim leaders around the globe distributing Danish flags, false
fliers demonstrating the cartoons (on the fliers exist a handful of cartoons more offensive than those published which never made it to the pages of
Danish papers) and instructions for protesting/demonstrating. So, like dominoes the pilgrims die and shortly thereafter, the protests begin which
galvanize the muslims against the Western World instead of allowing them to galvanize against the "enemy from within" which is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia & the Bush Administration:
Strangely, though the magic 8-ball will tell us that all signs point to Saudi Arabia for setting up this tragic and unnecessary series of protests and
attacks, just yesterday, the Bush Administration, via Condi Rice, contended that Iran and Syria were complicit in motivating the protestors to become
violent. It makes one wonder whether Saudi Arabia got the ball rolling for the U.S. It has been clear that Europe does not maintain the bloodlust for
Middle Eastern oil that the U.S. does and nothing helps to get an ally to see things your way like the creation of a common enemy. So, in order to get
your European allies to see Iran and the muslims as the force to be checked in the world and give the green light to an Iranian attack, you scare the
heck out of Europe by fomenting protest and revolt amongst the muslim population on that continent.
The Oil Bourse:
As some may be aware, there are major timing issues in play here which were also in play during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. For the most part,
global crude is traded in U.S. dollars. Such a situation has a synergistic effect on both the value of crude and the stability of the U.S. dollar. It
creates a need for a stable U.S. dollar due to the importance of being able to trade a commodity against a non-moving target. It also stabilizes the
dollar because it leverages a relatively fixed asset (exportable crude) against a fluctuating one (a nation's currency). I may be overly simplistic
in this explanation, but it's the basic jist of the interrelationship of a commodity and the currency under which that commodity is traded.
Now, Iraq and Saddam were in a similar position as Iran. The only stick they had to wield in geo-politics was their oil (and carrots make poor
sticks). No nukes or WMD yet as we've discovered. (Again, this is why Iran wants the Bomb. It's a much more effective stick than oil as the planet
is slowly becoming wise to the pitfalls of our over utilization of fossil fuels.) So Iraq pulled out the only stick they had. Saddam threatened to
move trading of Iraqi oil from the dollar to the euro. Obviously, such a move would have a dual effect...it would strengthen the euro by tying it to a
solid commodity and would weaken the dollar by stripping it of its link to Iraqi crude. Go figure, but our invasion was timed to keep such a move from
dollar to euro oil trading from occuring in Iraq. Subsequently, the move never materialized.
Take a look at the timing of the Iran Oil Bourse, a new marketplace set to open on March 20th which will tie the Iranian oil reserves to the euro for
the purposes of trading. Sound familiar? It is doubtful that the U.S. will allow that to happen.
Now here comes the more wild element of my theory. Gauging from the world's current opinion of Iran and its threat to global security, there's just
no chance in hell that we're going to get European sign off on an attack or invasion of Iran before March 20th. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not going
to let the Oil Bourse fly so they must have an actionable offence to attribute to Iran to accelerate that timetable. That's where the false flag
Tieing it all together:
Okay, so now we've got the Saudis putting the muslim world up to protesting a series of cartoons in order to scare the crap out of the Western world.
Then we've got the Bush Administration telling folks that it's not the Saudis but the Iranians and the Syrians in order to shift European public
opinion toward fear of Iran and Syria. Though Europe is concerned about Iran's recent efforts toward development of the Bomb, the consensus is that
they are years away. Here comes the false-flag. Now, you can't pull off a false flag in Europe alone because it has become clear that Europe still
has the lingering taste of two world wars in their mouth and are not anxious to start a fight with anyone at this point. They just wouldn't react as
quickly as the U.S. would. In addition, the Oil Bourse is better for Europe than the U.S. so their motivation to stop it is nothing compared to that
of the U.S. You might pull of a small scale attack to help align the U.S. and Europe's perspectives, but it's likely an unnecessary risk.
Ultimately, the U.S. really needs the world to fear Iran, but quick so you can still expect a false flag. The catch is that it almost HAS TO BE
nuclear. If you launch a U.S. based false flag against the U.S. in the name of Iran and you really want the world to see Iran as an immediate threat,
you've got to get the world thinking that Iran is much farther along on their nuclear efforts and poses a threat to the entire planet.
Where does that leave us?
In my opinion, it leaves us on the edge of our seats anticipating a nuclear false-flag within the borders of the U.S. Though we already have military
assets in Iraq and could move them to Iran more quickly than a fresh deployment directly from the U.S. it still takes a bit of planning to move troops
from one hostile territory to another. As a result, I would expect this attack to occur no later than March 1 to allow for some minor planning on our
side prior to attack. In fact, I still believe that an invasion of Iran is not a likely goal. I imagine that the U.S., possibly along with Israel will
stage a series of bombing runs w/in that country intended to cripple Iran's infrastructure and put a hold on the Oil Bourse. You see, you can't
switch the currency through which you trade a commodity if you stop trading the commodity because your supply chain is in shambles. Should Iran push
forward to launch the Oil Bourse despite an attack...false-flag #2 will occur against U.S. troops in Iraq which will immediately galvanize world-wide
support for a nuclear response which will guarantee that Iran will be too busy counting their dead and hunting for fresh air and water to be able to
worry about which currency is tied to their now non-existent exports.
Oh, golly do I hope that I'm wrong, but my magic 8-ball is reeling at the series of coincidences, bluster, and rhetoric which are flying around in
prelude the the ominous rollout of the Iranian Oil Bourse. We didn't let Saddam get away with it (even though a recent article has Israeli sources
indicating that they were probably better off with Saddam wielding a ruthless dictatorship in Iraq than they are now with virtual chaos in that
nation), why are we going to let Iran pull the rug out from under us? We're a nation of cogs in a capitalist machine and believe it or not
rebuilding=spending=jobs=healthy economy. Sacrificing tens of thousands of people will only serve to bolster the U.S.'s position politically and
economically and as reprehensible as it may be, from the point of view of an administration that's getting it from all sides, it seems like good
*I do not apologize or mitigate my contentions above with any additions. After all, they are opinions and as such, should not require apology. Wanna
hop in and tear my theories to shreds, feel free, that's what the board is for. Wanna hop in and start a personal rumble where you call into question
my political ideology, morals, and motivations and you're not going to see me fight back at all because you're just wasting everyone's time. I
recommend to those who want to generate a personalized shouting match to turn on their favorite political news show (embodying the opposite side of
the aisle's ideology) and yell their little heads off.