The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?

Votingisanillusion

Senior member
Nov 6, 2004
626
0
0
The US Empire is altogether strong and weak. Its main weakness being the crazy amounts of eurodollars created over the years. It is such a huge weakness that it may force the Empire to start wars one after another.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=10615&hd=0&size=1&l=x

Dr. Elias Akleh, Serendipit

March 19, 2005 ? Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.

In June of 2004 Iran declared its intention of setting up an international oil exchange (a bourse) denominated in the Euro currency. Many oil-producing as well as oil-consuming countries had expressed their welcome to such petroeuro bourse. The Iranian reports had stated that this bourse may start its trade with the beginning of 2006. Naturally such an oil bourse would compete against London?s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as against the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by American corporations.

Oil consuming countries have no choice but use the American Dollar to purchase their oil, since the Dollar has been so far the global standard monetary fund for oil exchange. This necessitates these countries to keep the Dollar in their central banks as their reserve fund, thus strengthening the American economy. But if Iran ? followed by the other oil-producing countries ? offered to accept the Euro as another choice for oil exchange the American economy would suffer a real crisis. We could witness this crisis at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006 when oil investors would have the choice to pay $57 a barrel of oil at the American (NYMEX) and at London?s (IPE), or pay 37 Euros a barrel at the Iranian oil bourse. Such choice would reduce trade volumes at both the Dollar-dependent (NYMEX) and the (IPE).

Many countries had studied the conversion from the ever weakening petrodollar to the gradually strengthening petroeuro system. The de-valuation of the Dollar was caused by the American economy shying away from manufacturing local products ? except those of the military -, by outsourcing the American jobs to the cheaper third world countries and depending only on the general service sector, and by the huge cost of two major wars that are still going on. Foreign investors started withdrawing their money from the shaky American market causing further devaluation of the Dollar.

The keen observer of the money market could have noticed that the devaluation of the American Dollar had started since November 2002, while the purchasing power of European Euro had crept upward to reach nowadays to $1.34. Compared to the Japanese Yen the Dollar had dropped from 104.45 to 103.90 yen. The British pound climbed another notch from $1.9122 to $1.9272.

Economic reports published at the beginning of this month (March) had pointed towards the deep dive of the American economy and to the quick rise of the deficit up to $665.90 billion at the end of 2004. The worst is still to come. These numbers worried the international banks, who had sent some warnings to the Bush administration.

In its economical war Iran is treading the same path Saddam Hussein had started when he, in 2000, converted all his reserve from the Dollar to the Euro, and demanded payments in Euro for Iraqi oil. Many economists then mocked Saddam because he had lost a lot of money in this conversion. Yet they were very surprised when he recuperated his losses within less than a year period due to the valuation of the Euro. The American administration became aware of the threat when central banks of many countries started keeping Euros along side of Dollars as their monetary reserve and as an exchange fund for oil (Russian and Chinese central banks in 2003). To avoid economical collapse the Bush administration hastened to invade and to destroy Iraq under false excuses to make it an example to any country who may contemplate dropping the Dollar, and to manipulate OPEC?s decisions by controlling the second largest oil resource. Iraqi oil sale was reverted back to the petrodollar standard.

There is only one technical obstacle concerning the use of a euro-based oil exchange system, which 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. Yet this did not stop Iran from requiring payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian oil exports since spring 2003.

Iran?s determination in using the petroeuro is inviting in other countries such as Russia and Latin American countries, and even some Saudi investors especially after the Saudi/American relations have weakened lately. This determination had also invited an aggressive American political campaign using the same excuses used against Iraq: WMD in the form of nuclear bomb, support to "terrorist" Lebanese Hezbollah organization, and threat to the peace process in the Middle East.

The question now is what would the American administration do? Would it invade Iran as it did Iraq? The American troops are knee-deep in the Iraqi swamp. The global community ? except for Britain and Italy- is not offering any military relief to the US. Thus an American strike against Iran is very unlikely. Iran is not Iraq; it has a more robust military power. Iran has anti-ship missiles based in "Abu Mousa" island that controls the strait of Hermuz at the entrance of the Persian Gulf. Iran could easily close the strait thus blocking all naval traffic carrying gulf oil to the rest of the world causing a global oil crisis. The price of an oil barrel could reach up to $100. The US could not topple the regime by spreading chaos the same way it did to Mussadaq?s regime in 1953 since Iranians are aware of such a trick. Besides Iranians have a patriotic pride of what they call "their bomb".

America has resorted to instigate and encourage its military bastard, Israel, to strike Iranian nuclear reactors the way it did to Iraq. Leaked reports had revealed that Israeli forces are training for such an attack expected to take place next June. Israel is afraid of an Iranian bomb. Such an "Islamic" bomb would threaten Israel?s military hegemony in the Middle East. The bomb would extract some Israeli concessions and would create an arm race that would gobble a lot of Israeli defense expenditure. Further more the bomb would force the US to enter into negotiations with nuclear Iran that may limit Israeli expanding ambitions.

Iran had invested a lot of money and effort to obtain nuclear technology and would never abandon it as evident in its political rhetoric. Unlike Iraq Iran would not keep quiet of Israel strikes its nuclear facilities. Iran would retaliate aggressively which may lead to the destabilization of the whole region including Israel, Gulf States, Iraq, and even Afghanistan.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The Iranians are welcome to try. The problem isn't what currency the exchange trades on, it's liquidity. Oil trades in New York and London because that's where the trades are, just setting up a petroleum exchange in Bumfuk Egypt isn't going to magically make buyers and sellers come. And saying traders would prefer buy oil for 37 Euro rather than 57 dollars or that central banks will be "forced" to hold dollars is plain stupid, if you understood the size of the FOREX markets (trillions daily) you'd realize that you could have an exchange trading oil denominated in riyals, rupees, rubles, Bangladeshi taka, or beads and wampum and it would still work fine.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Glen1. I don't think you're correct. Oil may trade in NY and London now, but there's no reason why that has to continue. Large commercial centers got their start in part because people needed to be able to deal with each other and physical presense was the only way. That's no longer true. If Bumfuck can secure a suffient communication capacity AND enable oil traders to make more money, it will happen. Holding large dollar reserves does make things more convenient for countries but it can easily be done in other currencies, as you point out.

I did like the part of the article where it said, "The keen observer of the money market could have noticed that the devaluation of the American Dollar had started since November 2002, . . . " You don't gottas be Hawkeye to know that the dollar has lost value at what I think is an unprecedented rate.

EDITED to ADD: We're the 800 pound brooding gorilla sitting in the corner. The only one of its kind. If I had to live in the world with that gorilla, I would want to get it down to the size of some of the other gorillas if I could do so without danger to myself. Just our size and power provide some powerful incentive for working against us.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
i've researched this, and all elective wars have been started either by crazy power hungry a*holes OR by their leaders out of desperation for some equally psychotic goal in their narrow minds. take your pick, or maybe both apply here.
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Where do you guys come up with such biased sources? A pro Saddam website? Give me a break!
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
i've researched this, and all elective wars have been started either by crazy power hungry a*holes OR by their leaders out of desperation for some equally psychotic goal in their narrow minds. take your pick, or maybe both apply here.


So the American Revolution was started by crazy power hungry A*holes? So The US was a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they started the Civil War? Israel were a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to preempt the attack that was about to happen? You need to do more research.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: drewshin
i've researched this, and all elective wars have been started either by crazy power hungry a*holes OR by their leaders out of desperation for some equally psychotic goal in their narrow minds. take your pick, or maybe both apply here.


So the American Revolution was started by crazy power hungry A*holes? So The US was a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they started the Civil War? Israel were a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to preempt the attack that was about to happen? You need to do more research.

American Revolution: yes, started by one crazy a*hole, king george III.

Civil War: Yes, the war was started by the South, I consider them to be a*holes and power hungry, did they not want to secede and create their own country and not follow the laws of our country, dont you? who fired on fort sumter?

Six Day War: Both Syria and Egypt instigated the war. Egypt's blockade which effectively cut off Israel from most of the outside world in terms of oil. crazy leaders that thought they could wipe israel out.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
I've read this report before. I don't know where, but it wasn't from any of these sources.

Iranian Mullahs are stupid.
 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0
See I can get behind this reason for war not some half-baked lies about nuclear Proliferation.
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: drewshin
i've researched this, and all elective wars have been started either by crazy power hungry a*holes OR by their leaders out of desperation for some equally psychotic goal in their narrow minds. take your pick, or maybe both apply here.


So the American Revolution was started by crazy power hungry A*holes? So The US was a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they started the Civil War? Israel were a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to preempt the attack that was about to happen? You need to do more research.

American Revolution: yes, started by one crazy a*hole, king george III.

Civil War: Yes, the war was started by the South, I consider them to be a*holes and power hungry, did they not want to secede and create their own country and not follow the laws of our country, dont you? who fired on fort sumter?

Six Day War: Both Syria and Egypt instigated the war. Egypt's blockade which effectively cut off Israel from most of the outside world in terms of oil. crazy leaders that thought they could wipe israel out.


Hmm...So the Colonials didn't start the war when they shot at the British at Lexington? Of course they did. King George didn't force us to attack the British. We decided to.

Civil War - Lincoln could have just let the South secede. He decided not to and so they fought at Bull Run.

Six Day War - Israel attacked first

how about the '56 war? Israel took the Suez with British and French backing after Nasser Nationalied the canal. Was Israel nuts or do you blame Nasser?

Was Alexander the Great nuts? Was the US nuts to attack Iraq in the first Gulf War or are you going to blame Saddam? Were the Maccabees nuts to take back the temple? Were the Prussians nuts to start the Franco-Prussian war? Was the US nuts to fight our way across the contient? Were we nuts to fight Mexico? Was texas nuts to fight mexico. Was cromwell nuts to start a cival war?
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: drewshin
i've researched this, and all elective wars have been started either by crazy power hungry a*holes OR by their leaders out of desperation for some equally psychotic goal in their narrow minds. take your pick, or maybe both apply here.


So the American Revolution was started by crazy power hungry A*holes? So The US was a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they started the Civil War? Israel were a bunch of power hungry a*holes when they attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to preempt the attack that was about to happen? You need to do more research.

American Revolution: yes, started by one crazy a*hole, king george III.

Civil War: Yes, the war was started by the South, I consider them to be a*holes and power hungry, did they not want to secede and create their own country and not follow the laws of our country, dont you? who fired on fort sumter?

Six Day War: Both Syria and Egypt instigated the war. Egypt's blockade which effectively cut off Israel from most of the outside world in terms of oil. crazy leaders that thought they could wipe israel out.


Hmm...So the Colonials didn't start the war when they shot at the British at Lexington? Of course they did. King George didn't force us to attack the British. We decided to.

Civil War - Lincoln could have just let the South secede. He decided not to and so they fought at Bull Run.

Six Day War - Israel attacked first

how about the '56 war? Israel took the Suez with British and French backing after Nasser Nationalied the canal. Was Israel nuts or do you blame Nasser?

Was Alexander the Great nuts? Was the US nuts to attack Iraq in the first Gulf War or are you going to blame Saddam? Were the Maccabees nuts to take back the temple? Were the Prussians nuts to start the Franco-Prussian war? Was the US nuts to fight our way across the contient? Were we nuts to fight Mexico? Was texas nuts to fight mexico. Was cromwell nuts to start a cival war?


Are you nuts?