[Marinir] The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target

[Yap Hong Gie]

Dear All,

Maaf saya tidak sanggup menterjemahkan atau membuat resume-nya.

Tapi intinya adalah: IRAN = "PETRO-EURO"
(IRAK = "PETRO-Dollar")

Wassalam, yhg.
-------------------


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

www.globalresearch.ca      27 October 2004

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

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/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm

[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.htm

[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. 


-- 
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 538 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len