The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target

is irans uranium refining capability (nuke weapons potential) another ploy like iraqs wmds?

or is it all about oil, the greenback and the us economy?


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


The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse


or maybe not...

Why Iran's Oil Bourse can't break the Buck

[edit on 2/5/06 by SpanishFly]

SpanishFly: The "Greenback" is still the basic support structure of the world economy, and will be for quite some time. America has more oil in it's shale deposits, alone (a trillion barrels) than all of Iran .

The threat Iran made to destroy Isreal and America doesn't have anything to do with it??? We've been letting the (corrupt) UN and other nations try to work this out with Iran, but they won't satisfied 'till there's a confrontation.

By the way, it's long been known that Iraq's WMD's were moved mostly to Syria and Sudan. Remember all the stuff Khadaffi gave up so easily? Where do you think that came from? He didn't have the means to produce all that.

Edit for text placement.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by zappafan1]

Ok let’s say oil was denominated in euros and you got this big pile of eruos. What are you going to do with it? Europe is a continent with barely 1% growth, 10% unemployment, a larger debt burden that than America, its citizens are poorer and is full of people who would rather riot than work and is in the midst of demographic death spiral. 40% of Swedish households would be consider low income in the US!

When you have a pile of dollars it allows you access to the to an economy that is largest, most efficient, most dynamic, has the largest GDP per capita, has the largest purchasing power and the most productive.

Additionally, let’s say Iran decides to shut down the Straights of Hormuz. Who’s going to go over there and make them cut it out? France? Germany? Please; that would be the US Navy. You see American is a country that has the means to protect and defend it currency and economic interest and the rest of world gloms on to that capability.

What would happen to europe's economy if they had to shoulder their fair share of keeping a clamp-down on the word's maniacs?

[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]

ACK- I have to start from scratch because a keyboard glitched wiped my first attempt at response. El Tiante - your delivery of viewpoints is arrogant, largely in error and shows a lack of significant ability to coherently argue your points.

1% growth? 10% unemployment? A larger debt burden that than America? 40% of swedish families are low income per U.S. standards?

OK- here are the links I will quote from-

www.optimist123.com...
www.cia.gov...

(percentages quoted from CIA World Factbook)
Our current national debt. It stands at 8.4 trillions. www.federalbudget.com

This is 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)

I can not find the concrete numbers for the total combined debt of all European countries - so I will give you this, as misleading as you intended it to be, that the combined debt of ALL European countries concievably exceeds our $8.4 trillion. This also ignores the fact that our current administration is responsible for a large portion of that, and the trends of this administrations out of control spending have on future expectations.

Czech Republic 33.1% of GDP (2005 est.)
Denmark 35.7% of GDP (2005 est.)
Finland 42% of GDP (2005 est.)
Netherlands 55% of GDP (2005 est.)
Norway 36% of GDP (2005 est.)
United Kingdom 42.2% of GDP (2005 est.)
Sweden 50.3% of GDP (2005 est.)
Switzerland 53.3% of GDP (2005 est.)

For grins:
China 28.8% of GDP (2005 est.)
Russia 15.6% of GDP (2005 est.)
Estonia 3.8% of GDP (2005 est.)

I have no idea where you pull 1% growth from (your arse?). That is just flat wrong, over generalized to the point of being worthless, and stupid.

When you have a pile of dollars it allows you access to the to an economy that is largest, most efficient, most dynamic, has the largest GDP per capita, has the largest purchasing power and the most productive.

How long do you expect this to hold true in a world where globalization takes away profit margins with slave labor and our infrastruture is sold-out to foreign interests? What is to stop said foreign interests from dumping the dollar standard for a more stable Euro in the event of collapse here? Think it can't happen? Keep living in fairy land, but I'd buy some pixie dust to keep the fantasy alive when it all comes crashing down around your ears.

What would happen to europe's economy if they had to shoulder their fair share of keeping a clamp-down on the word's maniacs?

Here's the scary part - their economy would probably do very well as the world switched to the Euro as the standard for currency and our inflated value dollar collapses.

BUT back on topic and the important aspect outside dispelling El Tiante's (Cigars anyone?) diatribe-

Living on credit without spending that credit on instruments that can create wealth is ultimately foolish. It is the path far too many Americans are taking as evidenced by the trends in debt-slavery to credit companies and banks becuase our society on whole is not disciplined enough to save and programmed to consume. On the face of it, it appears our government is afflicting in the same vein.

But here's the catch, and the sadistic brilliance of the current gross spending trends by this administration - it LOOKS like we're spending out of control, money we don't have, etc - but consider where the money is going.

Those billions spent on Iraq is investment capital - this flies in the face of the rhetoric of bringing freedom to Iraq and helping the Iraqi people. The REALITY is we are using economic imperialism to create a solid colony in modern times in Iraq.

We . Are. Not. Leaving. Iraq.

For the rest you may read (at your peril). It's not too long but very detailed and it incudes the following:

3.4 It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one
Poverty is a highly relative concept. As we saw in the preceding section, for example,
40 per cent of all Swedish households would rank among low-income households in the
USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as
low income earnings by the American definition. In an affluent economy, in other words,
it is not unlikely that those perceived as poor in an international perspective are relatively
well off. The media image of the American poor is that they have great difficulties to
contend with, that they are dossers, junkies and in various ways marginalised. There are
of course such groups in the USA, and they are relatively large, but – and this is an
important “but” – such groups exist in European countries too. There is also another
image of poverty in the USA, namely that the great majority of those considered to be
poor have a relatively good material standard of living. Examples are given below.

First of all, the percentage of poor people in the USA has diminished over time, concurrently
with the growth of the American economy; see Table 3:1. In 1959, for example,
22 per cent of all Americans were living below the then poverty line. Today only 12 per
cent are living below the present-day poverty line. Things have also improved for the black
population of the USA, whereas for Hispanics the poverty percentage has changed little
since 1972.5

www.timbro.com...

The EU economy is expected to grow further over the next decade as more countries join the union - especially considering that the new member states are usually poorer than the EU average. Growth is almost assured, and hopes are high that this will lead to the modern dynamic of a united Europe. It is estimated that through 2010 the eurozone will grow 1.1 per cent annually1, which is significantly less than other industrialized nations such as the United States, which has an estimated GDP growth of 3 per cent annually through 2020.[4]

The EU's share of Gross world product (GWP) is falling. GDP growth, though strong in the new member states, is being affected by sluggish growth in France and especially Germany and Italy. The Benelux countries also have low growth.


en.wikipedia.org...

Darn those pesky facts!


[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]

I hit the charmax wall - but I feel this is important and contributes to the discussion so


Where was I? Those billions in appropriations going to Halliburton\Cheney et. al and the other no-bid winners that are so intricately intertwined with our governing administration are receiving this money. And they are buying assets and insfrastruture in Iraq.

We. Are. Not. Leaving. Iraq. - Ever. And we're headed to Iran soon- watch it on a TV near you soon!

We may "leave" Iraq and Iran one day - but just in a photo-op style sense. We will leave huge military bases and presence and you remember all those billions we spent? Expect us to force Iraq (and soon Iran) to pay with THEIR taxes and assets. We will control their country either overtly or covertly, it doesn't matter or change the reality.

Rothschild learned this when he pioneered political manipulation through debt management. He would loan money to both sides for war, and then profit from boths sides, and then default and claim the real assets of the loser who could not pay him back. Brilliant! And applicable if the powers that be can run up a huge deficit and then say screw you to the people owed in the end. (ohhh lotsa ways to take that statement!)

And now - my point! - sorry I took so long-

Question:
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target

Answer:
Because control of the supply of ENERGY controls the DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION.

Extrapolation- if we control the energy supply in the Middle East and other parts of the world as best we can, then we control the rate of advancement and inherent threat to global supremacy of our rival's. China, Russia, and any up and coming economic powers. We insure the supremacy of the United States and our personal supply of energy to continue to grow our economy. On paper. Back in the early 90's when the Project for a New American Century made these plans.


There's just a few problems with reality that get in the way of PNAC's goals. Peak Oil is a myth, Russia, Venezuela and others have access to pools of energy and China has the potential of economic power and explosive growth that will demand they take the U.S. economic imperialism as a threat to their national security. Powderkeg anyone?

Originally posted by El Tiante
Darn those pesky facts!

...if you didn't notice I quoted the link you pulled your false conceptions from above your reply. But this has degenerated into two geeks swatting at each other-

D%M YOUR NINJAEDITS! LOL

Your "facts" are skewed to begin with - how about we lump in Mexico and parts of South America into our American economic numbers and then you have a comparable analogy to what you are trying to make statements from.

If you want to lump Europe all together and take the bad with the good, then do we have to take on the Mexican economy into the equation? Using a broad lumping of soverign European nations to make statements about their viable before there exists a standardized European Union is as fair as putting all North American countries into a North American Trade Area (ack!!! that almost sounds like the way things are headed?!!).

But that would require you to use your mind and a knowledge of economics that I don't think you can grasp outside of spoonfed websites that espouse skewed facts into something you can digest.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Violent]

Originally posted by Violent


If you want to lump Europe all together and take the bad with the good, then do we have to take on the Mexican economy into the equation? Using a broad lumping of soverign European nations to make statements about their viable before there exists a standardized European Union is as fair as putting all North American countries into a North American Trade Area (ack!!! that almost sounds like the way things are headed?!!).

But that would require you to use your mind and a knowledge of economics that I don't think you can grasp outside of spoonfed websites that espouse skewed facts into something you can digest.

What the heck are you talking about? The growth numbers are for the eu, you know the part of the world that uses the eruo.

I cite three different and independent sources to support my suppositions. These sites are fully sourced.

You’ll have to better than that.


[edit on 3-5-2006 by El Tiante]

Originally posted by zappafan1
SpanishFly: The "Greenback" is still the basic support structure of the world economy, and will be for quite some time. America has more oil in it's shale deposits, alone (a trillion barrels) than all of Iran .

The threat Iran made to destroy Isreal and America doesn't have anything to do with it??? We've been letting the (corrupt) UN and other nations try to work this out with Iran, but they won't satisfied 'till there's a confrontation.

By the way, it's long been known that Iraq's WMD's were moved mostly to Syria and Sudan. Remember all the stuff Khadaffi gave up so easily? Where do you think that came from? He didn't have the means to produce all that.

Edit for text placement.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by zappafan1]

Why do you call the U.N. corrupt? Look at our govt for feverish corruption. Stop looking at the U.N. It's a scapegoat. With every organization in politics there is corruption. The Office Budget Director of our country got arrested for godsake.
Look at this administration. Plame was involved with nuclear capability investigation and look what our administration did.


And stop mentioning the talking point of Syria and WMD's being moved there. You can't prove it and will never be able to. This country has listened to enough armchair warriors already. That's what got us in this mess with Iraq. You can't be that naive just because you read a bulletin on Newsmax or World News Daily saying there are WMD's in Syria. There is *NO* evidence. It's a Jerry Bruckheimer pilot script if there ever was. And that's the end of that Syria myth.

Originally posted by SpanishFly


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


The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse



Why Iran's Oil Bourse can't break the Buck

all 3 of the ideas the links propose are significant factors,
but they are secondary factors imho.

The US, and some of the Western World powers (coalition members)
cannot abide with a new & powerful, Islamic Republic of Iran, which possesses
nuclear weapons or the ability & technology to develop atomic weapons.

Iran cannot be allowed to challenge the US regional dominance...
If Iran pokes the US in the eye, then other central asian & mid east followers of Jihad will give allegience & power, resources in the undeclared war against American Imperialism.

the oil & gas reserves, the uranium and diamond mines in Iran, are added bonuses
or 'the spoils of engagement' from either a military engagement,
or a diplomatic engagement, or an economic engagement.

fyi, some late news;
[... Washington is ready to form a coalition of countries to take sanctions against Iran... the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said] according to APF
www.turkishweekly.net.."U.S. ready to form anti-Iran coalition: Bolton" dtd today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


?? in another reply in the thread, use of CIA FACTBOOK as a source??
thats' like believing the governments' InflationRate and the Consumer Price Index
are truly reflecting the practical economy we have to live in and deal with...

gasoline at $3.++ is not considered as cost of living or inflation...
rising bank & credit card rates are not inflation or factors in determining cost of living.
many many real things are excluded or deluded in presenting youse with the fanciful notion that you are well off and not just a poor shlump, just scraping by in the ecomomy. dream-on

Ah, the Petro-dollar.

Once upon a time, the US dollar was based on a gold standard.

In 1944 44 countries got together, in what was called the Bretton Woods meetings. And created the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Later this became part of the World Bank Group that we all know.

There, everyone agreed, among other things, to maintain the exchange rate of their currencies in terms of gold. At the time the US had the largest reserves of gold in the world.

Of course this system broke down when Nixon took the US off the gold standard. Which, he did in part because the US was increasingly called on to make good for the dollar by paying out gold to other countries.

In August of 1971, Nixon took the United States off of the gold exchange standard and the last bastion of gold-based currencies ceased. Prior to this point, foreign central banks had the ability to exchange any U.S. dollars they accumulated for gold. Because we were expanding our money supply rapidly, many central banks around the world had done just that. As such, from 1958 to 1971, our gold stock had fallen from $19 billion to $10 billion, and over the same time, U.S. liquid liabilities to foreign central banks had risen to over $60 billion. Though, this is, comparatively, a pittance to the trillions we owe today, the demand, especially from France and Britain, became so strong that the United States reneged on this agreement, and the world embarked on the current free floating currency system we know today.
Doug Wakefield

In 1975 the Saudis agreed to only take the dollar for their oil. Soon, all of OPEC made the same agreement.

To this day, when oil trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) or the London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), all of the transactions are made exclusively in dollars. This means that every country in the world has to exchange their currency for U.S. dollars in order to buy or sell oil.

Again, if Russia, Argentina or Iran wants to sell oil to China, India or France, they must do so in U.S. dollars. Because of this, each country keeps an ample supply of dollars on hand, hence the term "reserve currency." Needless to say, this gives the United States certain economic advantages.
Doug Wakefield

At about the same time this was happening (1975), the Saudis agreed to export their oil for US dollars exclusively. Soon OPEC as a whole adopted the rule. Now, as a result, the dollar was backed not by gold but, in effect, by oil. Had the US permitted the Saudis to nationalize their oil industry in return for this extraordinary favor? Because the Saudi royal family and the oil companies are all notoriously tight-lipped, we may never know.
Richard Heinberg

Up until now, there's only been two places to buy oil.

While oil can be drilled and refined and transported anywhere, there's only two places where it can be officially purchased. One is in New York City on the NYMEX stock exchange and the other in London on the IPE exchange. I should mention that London's IPE is actually now owned by an American country named "ICE".

This doesn't mean that oil actually has to be transferred from say, Saudi Arabia, to New York where it sits in a real barrel until it's sold to a customer in Japan. What it does mean however is that oil is traded like any commodity, via these two (and ONLY these two) stock exchanges. There are also "futures" or promises of future oil deliveries sold and traded as well.

So the customer in Japan, perhaps a large oil refinery company, buys the oil "shares" via one of the two exchanges from one of the oil owners, a company such as ExxonMobil or Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO. And while the oil itself never actually gets to London or New York, all the money involved flows through those two cities. And every single barrel of oil is bought and sold in American dollars.

This means that every single country which wishes to buy oil has to own dollars to do it. Since these dollars are held overseas, they are referred to as Eurodollars, although once again they don't have to be in Europe. A dollar in China is a dollar in America too - they aren't valued any differently.

If anything, you should read this here.

www.museletter.com...

It explains in depth the whole matter. While I'm not sure I'd cry DOOM! up and down the streets, I think it would be shortsighted to ignore how important this matter is.

Money is always an issue. The Iranians are poised to knock a dent into America's oil profiteering, whether by their Euro plan, or just via simple competition. Whickever way it goes, they are going to make money.

The last thing America wants is an Iran that has money. Unlike Saddam or the Arabian princes, the Iranians are going to put that money to good use. No palaces, no monuments to themselves - they're going to use their oil money to strengthen Iranian infrastructure, fund the military, educate their population, and just modernize in general.

America does not want this. A modernized Iran is a powerful Iran. As it stands now, America is the dominant force in the Middle East, via our military in Iraw and a proxy military force in Israel, along with our economic noosing of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. America wants to maintain its regional dominance. Iran is rising to challange that dominance.

What we're seeing is the clash of two empires - The stretched American empire, and the re-emerging Persian empire. The best America can hope for is to contain the Iranians. Attacking would be a disaster, the breaking point for their own empire.

Iran oil markets, oil traded in Euros, Oil Companies having to switch to the Euro and lose money, then think 9/11, arabs, oil companies, New York, WTC, George Bush and CIA. It all smells..

And the Federal Reserve isn't going to report M3s anymore. That smells too in my opinion. Like they expect the dollar to devalue, and they want to obscure it.

I found another thread here on ATS about this subject, full of good info:


www.abovetopsecret.com...