War Without End

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:04 pm; edited 7 times in total

Scott Ritter Says US Plans to Attack Iran in June (2005):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/21/scott-ritter-says-u-s-plans-june-attack-on-iran.php

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel pushes US to attack Iranian nuclear facilities:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/21/israel-pushes-u-s-on-iran-nuke-solution.php

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?a=36&num=3

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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@yahoo.com

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright WILLIAM CLARK, CRG 2004.

www.globalresearch.ca

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/december/12_13_1.html

U.S. STAGES SIMULATED ATTACK ON IRAN

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. Defense Department was said to have completed simulated war games to determine the feasibility of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran.

The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against the Islamic republic. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and comprised the easiest part of any military campaign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The above is not the full item.

Bush's Inaugaral Address: The Israeli Connection Continues

http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_inaugural.htm

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm#1

Alpha

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:44:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: The Real Reasons Why Iran will be the Next Target

Dear Mr. Clark,

I just read your article about the US dollar v. the Euro being the main reason why Iraq was invaded (and why the USA will go after Iran next):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2004/10/27/the-real-reasons-why-iran-is-the-next-target.php

Are you familiar with James Bamford's new book ('A Pretext for War') about the Zionist neoconservatives who pushed the USA into invading Iraq for their Likud cronies in Israel. Your articles (papers) are significant as well. However, the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was for Israel (via the JINSA/CSP/PNAC neoconservatives whom Dick Cheney is associated with as well), and the second was to control the region's resources via the PNAC agenda. Your Euro vs. US dollar argument is valid as well. But it was not the only reason. More about Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book is included in the message thread (URL) via the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/index.php

Alpha · Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:56 pm Post subject: Iran: A Bridge too Far?

Are the Russians Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/26/russia-ready-to-vaporize-the-jewish-state.php

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?a=36&num=3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. MG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.”

( http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5051 )

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’ insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russians’ animated conversation:

“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”
“They simply cannot help themselves.”
“What idiots!”
“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson…”
“Yes! For their own good.”
“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”
“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”
“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!”

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is “one bridge too far”?

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed…

Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives…

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…

Conclusion

Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and security.

* * *
Mark Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mark’s articles about the Mid-East and proliferation issues have appeared in the Middle East Policy Journal, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, the Earth Island Journal, The Oregonian, the Daily Californian, and have been posted on numerous web sites, especially Counterpunch.org. Mark’s 2003 paper Will Iran Be Next? can be viewed at < www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm> Mark’s newest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was released by Inner Traditions Press in May 2003. Email <Mhgaffney@aol.com> For more information go to www.GnosticSecrets.com

Alpha

William Clark wrote:

Well, I am familiar with Bamford's "Body of Secrets," but I have not read his latest, "A Pretext for War."

Regarding Iraq, the reasons for the war are likely multiple and complex, yet each is somewhat interrelated and intertwined. If I were to "rank" the reasons, I would probably list these four.

1) Global Peak Oil - which the CIA has studied since the mid-70s, predicted to occur this decade...

2) Desire to increase US military basing in the Gulf - with US strategic planning going back to 1975 as "The Kissinger Plan." #1 drives #2, which is designed to lock-out the EU, Russia India and/or China from gaining "control" over the largest hydrocarbon reserves.

3) Surprising emergence of an "intolerable" petroeuro in 2000(the final nail - and the least understood of all the issues, hence my research). The petroeuro is the greatest challenge to US economic hegemony (and thus military hegemony as well), and maintaining a monopoly petrodollar arrangement is the issue that could produce a desperate military strategy re Iran.

4) Help eliminate one the Israel's foes - but IMO this issue is tertiary to the above three factors, each of which revolve specifically around the desire to maintain US hegemony.

Oil and money drove the great wars of the 20th century, and played an important part in the Cold War standoff. Sadly, the same pattern applies in the 21st century. The issues over the petroeuro threat also applies to geopolitical tensions b/t the US and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and b/t the US and the EU, but of course that is another essay...actually... that's all covered in my upcoming book; 'Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq, and the Future of the Dollar.'

BTW, I read the essay on the Sunburn missles and Chinese/Iranian tactical factors, which indeed presents a serious risk for US Naval operations re Iran...not to mention the global economy should the Strait become blocked.

Alpha

Alpha · Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:31 pm Post subject: War for Israel

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/18/1734209

http://www.mojones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html

Keep in mind while reading the following 'The Thirty Itch' article that the Zionists were very concerned when support for a Palestinian state when up to 75 percent during the Saudi (Arab) oil embargo during the early 1970s (when the US came to Israel's aid after Egypt invaded to reclaim land that Israel had taken in the Six Day War), so the Zionists have been after the Saudi oil ever since (which is in accordance with the JINSA/CSP/PNAC agenda as well):

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0320202

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

Alpha · Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:07 am Post subject:

Thinking about Neoconservatism:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

In addition to being associated with the JINSA/PNAC agenda (of the Zionist Israel firster neoconservatives), Cheney was also the CEO of Halliburton which has financially benefitted from the invasion of Iraq as Cheney is still being financially compensated by Halliburton as well:

FBI Investigating Halliburton Contracts

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The FBI (news - web sites) has begun investigating whether the Pentagon (news - web sites) improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co., seeking an interview with a top Army contracting officer and collecting documents from several government offices.

The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers for fuel in Iraq (news - web sites), and it elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism to Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s former company.

FBI agents this week sought permission to interview Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer who went public last weekend with allegations that her agency unfairly awarded KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for work in Iraq, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Asked about the documents, Greenhouse's lawyers said Thursday their client will cooperate but that she wants whistleblower protection from Pentagon retaliation.

"I think it (the FBI interview request) underscores the seriousness of the misconduct, and it also demonstrates how courageous Ms. Greenhouse was for stepping forward," said Stephen Kohn, one of her attorneys.

"The initiation of an FBI investigation into criminal misconduct will help restore public confidence," Kohn said. "The Army must aggressively protect Ms. Greenhouse from the retaliation she will encounter as a result of blowing the whistle on this misconduct."

FBI agents also recently began collecting documents from Army offices in Texas and elsewhere to examine how and why Halliburton, a Houston-based oil services conglomerate, got the no-bid work.

"The Corps is absolutely cooperating with the FBI, and it has been an ongoing effort," said Army Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders. "Our role is to cooperate. It's a public contract and public funds. We've been providing them information for quite a while."

The FBI declined to comment Thursday.

Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said the company is cooperating with various investigations, but she dismissed the latest revelation as election politics. She noted Congress' auditing arm, the Government Accountability Office, found the company's no-bid work in Iraq was legal.

"The old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election," Hall said. "The GAO said earlier this year that the contract was properly awarded because Halliburton was the only contractor that could do the work.

"We look forward to the end of the election, because no matter who is elected president, Halliburton is proud to serve the troops just as we have for the past 60 years for both Democrat and Republican administrations," she said.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems, asked if investigators had contacted the vice president or his office about the contracts, said they had not.

Democrats have tried hard to make Halliburton an election-year issue

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (news - web sites) who has been investigating Halliburton's contracts, said his office was told the FBI recently sought documents from various government offices. The requests focused on how and why Halliburton got the Iraq contracts.

"This multibillion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton was suspicious from day one, and now our worst suspicions are confirmed," Lautenberg said. "The FBI doesn't get involved unless there are possible criminal violations."

In a formal whistleblower complaint filed last week, Greenhouse alleged the award of contracts without competition to KBR puts at risk "the integrity of the federal contracting program as it relates to a major defense contractor." The contracts were to restore Iraq's oil industry.

Among the evidence cited in the complaint was an internal 2003 Pentagon e-mail that says the Iraq contract "has been coordinated" with Cheney's White House office.

The vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation from when he was Halliburton's chief executive in the late 1990s, has steadfastly maintained he has played no role in the selection of his former company for federal business.

The Army last week referred Greenhouse's allegations to the Defense Department's inspector general. Documents show FBI agents from Quad Cities, Ill., asked Tuesday to interview Greenhouse. Her lawyers declined to discuss the contacts.

Greenhouse alleged in her complaint that after her superiors signed off on the Iraq business in February 2003, a month before the war began, and returned it for her necessary approval, she specifically asked why the work was being extended for several years.

Beside her signature, Greenhouse wrote: "I caution that extending this sole-source effort beyond a one-year period could convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition," the complaint said.

The oil restoration work was given to KBR without competitive bidding through 10 separate work assignments called "task orders." The orders were issued under an existing contract between Halliburton and the U.S. military that was awarded competitively in December 2001.

While the Corps was authorized to spend up to $7 billion for the oil restoration work, the actual cost so far has been $2.5 billion. Halliburton is still working on the oil facilities, but it is now operating under a new, competitively awarded contract.

___

Associated Press writer Larry Margasak contributed to this story.

___

On the Net:

Halliburton: http://www.halliburton.com

FBI: http://www.fbi.gov

Alpha · Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:14 am Post subject:

Mik responded:

[quote="William Clark as WC from the 'America' message board thread]:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2004/10/27/the-real-reasons-why-iran-is-the-next-target.php

Regarding Iraq, the reasons for the war are likely multiple and complex, yet each is somewhat interrelated and intertwined. If I were to "rank" the reasons, I would probably list these four.>>>>

Hi WC, welcome to this thread...it's always good to have interested people to discuss things with. As far as Israel being far down on the list of reasons, I disagree. When folks such as Congressman Tom Lantos go to Israel and proclaim months before the war that "We're going to pull down Saddam and put in a pro Israel, pro US Dictator, it shows a decided Israel influence in creating the war.

When a all Zionist group, and mostly Jewish Zionists at that, wrote the agenda of taking over Iraq back in the late 90's, we have a serious problem with over influence by Israel.

<<<1) Global Peak Oil - which the CIA has studied since the mid-70s, predicted to occur this decade...>>>

As far as "Peak Oil" goes, according to the "Thinkers of the 70's we're supposed to be out of oil already....According to the Saudi Government they have plenty of oil, and that may well be why the Neo Cons are intending to invade Saudi Arabia as well, to take their oil. That'll be after they take Iran's oil, or die trying, that is.

Here's an article you may enjoy....

http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/11720.php

The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides
by Wendy Campbell • Friday October 01, 2004 at 10:59 PM

*non copyrighted

What the Zionized US media hides from Americans...

The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil:
What the US Media Hides

By Wendy Campbell
Oct. 1, 2004

I have found that there is nothing more inspiring than taking a trip, especially to a foreign country where I leave behind my daily routine, including e-mails and the internet, to get to think outside the box and to get a chance to write down my thoughts.

The moment of inspiration for me to start writing this article on this latest trip, to Baja Mexico, came moments after I stepped into the Alaska Airlines jet and picked up the complimentary issue of The Wall Street Journal. Generally I avoid mainstream media these days since I know it is mostly pro-Israel propaganda as well as blown-up sensationalistic stories such as the case of Scott Peterson, meant to distract people from the more important issues of our time, such as the US foreign policy, for example.

The article in the Wall Street Journal dated September 21, 2004, that rankled me into finally writing this article which has been brewing in my mind for some time was one by Jeffrey Ball entitled “As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil’s Future”. The sub-title was: “ In a 1970’s echo, Dr. Campbell (no relation to me!) Warns Supply Is Drying Up, but Industry Isn’t Worried”.

Now let me explain to you that I have already come to the conclusion a while ago that this controversy about the “shortage of oil” is being pushed forward by mostly pro-Israel forces for their own narrow agenda that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the American people’s interests.

Even in this article, it is explained that: “Dr. Campbell is at the center of a small but suddenly influential band of contrarians known as the “peak oil movement”.

US MEDIA DECIDES WHO WILL BE SPOTLIGHTED IN THE MEDIA

Is it a coincidence that Dr. Campbell is “suddenly influential”? No, it is not. Even the Wall Street Journal is playing into the game of making Dr. Campbell “suddenly influential” with this article.

Why is the US media pushing Dr. Campbell, a man who lives in a tiny Irish village, into the limelight? Because the media, which is run by pro-Israel forces, want people like Dr. Campbell to be in the limelight is why.

And you may ask, why is that? Well, because Dr. Campbell’s views help support the pro-Israel agenda of that other “suddenly influential band of contrarians”, known as the NeoConservatives. The NeoConservatives are mostly Zionist Jews, headed by Paul Wolfowitz, who qualify as Israeli Americans, and who are now openly directing our US foreign policy almost completely. Christian Zionists such as Bush and Cheney have jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, it looks even more convincing when a non-Jew such as Dr. Campbell, puts forward claims that will lend support to the pro-Israel agenda.

People whose voices the US media wants you to hear will be heard. Conversely, people whose voices and actions the US media want to hide, will go into the memory hole. It’s only an illusion that we have a free and democratic press here in the US. Personally, I think it’s about time to vote for affirmative action laws with regards to specifically the US media and those in our US foreign policy department, both of which have a hugely disproportional percentage of Israeli-Americans in them. Whoever shapes public opinion has an unfair advantage politically. It serves as the government’s propaganda mouthpiece, but only when the government does as it wants. Conversely, it has to power to bring politicians down who are not pro-Israel enough, often simply by ignoring them and not giving them any coverage.

LET’S DEBUNK SOME COMMON MYTHS ABOUT ISRAEL AND OIL

First of all, I’m sure many of you are aware of the notion put out there by political pundits (who are most likely pro-Israel) that the US somehow needs Israel in the Middle East to be its stationary “aircraft carrier” to act as the “tough cop” looking out for American interests in that region, specifically with regards to oil.

Let me ask you these few revealing questions.

Have you ever noticed that bottled water is actually cheaper than gas?

Have you noticed or read the reports that the price of gas has not risen in keeping with inflation?

Do you realize that the Arab world needs to sell its oil even more than we need to buy it from them?

Did you know the US gets oil from many other countries including Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, etc. besides a few Middle Eastern countries? And that there are more and more discoveries of oil resources throughout the world? And that many geologists say that oil is actually a renewable resource? Even this Wall Street Journal article that sparked my writing this article gave many examples of how geologists scoff at Dr. Campbell’s prediction of an “oil crisis” looming ahead.

Even in Michael Moore’s Arab-bashing, misleading, “daring” expose documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11”, he made it clear that the Saudis are heavily invested in some sectors of American business, and that the Saudis are and always have been very cooperative with the US government, with the exception of the “oil crisis” of 1973, which I will discuss later in this article. It is well-known that the despotic Saudi government caters to the US government, so much in fact that the Saudi government is not popular with a vast majority of its own people, who see their government as selling out to the American government, which supports Israel’s brutal persecution of the Palestinian people. In fact, the Saudi government risks being overthrown by its own people because of their government’s relationship with the US. Osama bin Laden was thrown out of his country Saudi Arabia, his assets frozen in banks there, and he was ex-communicated from his family, because he advocates the overthrowing of the Saudi government for cooperating with the imperialistic, materialistic, Zionist-dominated US government, which has thousands of American troops stationed on Saudi soil, a key sticking point with bin Laden.

By the way, did you notice how Michael Moore didn’t even mention the word “Israel”? Or “Zionism”? Or even “NeoConservatism” in his documentary? Not surprising. His agent is top Hollywood Jewish Zionist Ari Emmanuel whose brother is Rahm Emmanuel, a hyper pro-Israel senator in Illinois.

Another interesting note about Moore’s documentary: he even pointed out how none of the Saudis could reap any financial benefits from the war on Iraq, unlike American companies such as Halliburton. So his whole Arab-bashing approach basically backfires. It shows how cowardly Moore is in the face of Zionist Hollywood, not to mention how greedy he obviously is to go for the big bucks, which toeing the Zionist line assures anyone in the worlds of US media and politics. It’s ever so convenient and “somehow” politically “acceptable” to scapegoat Arabs and Muslims in Zionist Hollywood and US media.

Consider this as well: does it make any sense whatsoever to spend over $200 BILLION on the war on Iraq to get control of Iraqi oil for US interests? Especially when we could easily buy it, if we needed to? Not to mention the war’s cost in human lives and alienating much of the world in the process?

SO WHAT IS REALLY THE PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA WITH REGARDS TO OIL?

So, what is the pro-Israel agenda when it comes to oil?

First of all, the ethno-centric Jewish state of Israel is a small, resource-poor country, with no natural oil resources, and is almost completely dependent on US support in the form of not only massive financial support (billions of US tax dollars yearly) but US military and political cover as well. Israel, quite simply, would not survive as the apartheid, imperialistic, war-mongering Jewish state that it is, without the massive support of the US government. Israel is surrounded by well-deserved, self-made enemies thanks to the initial injustice of the UN unilaterally giving away Arab land that was not theirs to give away in the first place to Eastern European Zionist Jews who have been committing ethnic cleansing and persecution of the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians ever since 1948. Since that time, Israel has continued to aggressively steal even more Arab land and has blatant ambitions to control the entire Middle East, using the power and might of the United States.

If more Americans were truly aware of how racist and imperialistic Israel is, they would most likely demand that our government stop supporting Israel at all until it is transformed into a true democracy for all regardless of religion, race or gender, as the world pressured South Africa to transform from an apartheid country to a true democracy ten years ago. If more Americans knew how support of Israel increases anti-American sentiment worldwide and ensures endless unjust wars, they might very well question their government’s support of Israel. There are many reasons for Americans to question their government’s support of Israel including first and foremost for real financial and security concerns as well as our country’s hard-won reputation as a democracy for all, regardless of religion, race or gender.

The fact is that the pro-Israel, Zionist-dominated US media very rarely even mentions the topic of Israel outside of incidents that involve Palestinian suicide bombers, which then make the screaming front page headlines. The footage of the aftermath of such an attack is played over and over again, back to back on ZNN (oops! I meant to write CNN!) and Fox News and all the other US media. These isolated attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers are thus over-reported while the context in which these desperate acts occur is usually completely ignored. The on-going brutal persecution of the non-Jewish Palestinian people, including the killing of innocent civilians and children, since 1948 by the Israeli army goes almost totally unreported and is generally veiled from view by the American public.

MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT ZIONISM IS, US MEDIA LIKES TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

Most Americans don’t even know what Zionism is. In a nutshell, it is a racist, nationalistic, political ideology conceived by Theodor Hertzl, an Austrian Jew in the 1890s, that maintains that there must be a Jewish state in Palestine, although that means and always has meant policies of ethnic-cleansing, apartheid and general persecution of the indigenous non-Jews of that land, the Arab Muslim and Christian Palestinians. In a nutshell, advocates of this racist Zionist ideology are driving our US foreign policy. What ever happened to separation of synagogue/ church and state? Isn’t it time to openly discuss this? Why are double standards allowed for Israel and for Zionists?

However the US media does not want Americans to even think about these things, never mind discuss them! Certainly, the pro-Israel media does not want Americans to question our government’s support of Zionist Israel. That is why there is never any mention in mainstream US media of the Israeli connection to 9-11, to the war on Iraq, to the so-called “war on terror”, and to the subject of Israel’s quest for oil.

This intentional covering up by the Zionized US media of the Israeli connection to anything that impacts the US negatively has been going on for decades.

WHAT THE US MEDIA STILL HIDES ABOUT THE 1973 “OIL CRISIS”

And nothing proves to me that the US media has been covering for Israel and still covers for Israel (refusing to show the negative effect for Americans of the US government’s “special relationship” with Israel) more than this article about the “oil crisis”. Here is a specific case in point:

Does anyone remember that time during 1973 when there was such an “oil crisis” that there were really long lines at all the gas stations and when gas was actually rationed out at the gas stations so that you could only get gas every other day, depending on whether or not your license plate ended in an even or an odd number?

I do remember that time vividly. I didn’t know why it was happening at the time, but I know exactly why now. And it’s not because I got “enlightened” by the pro-Israel US media.

Here is how this Sept. 21, 2004 Wall Street Journal article by Jeffrey Ball (who obviously passed the required litmus test of being pro-Israel enough to work in the US media) presented the “oil crisis” of 1973, in such a manner that still puts a veil of the Israeli connection to that event even today. Here is a direct quote:

“Then in 1973, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) tightened their spigots, and the world panicked. The result: high prices, long lines and frequent shortages at gas stations across the U.S. and Europe.”

There was exactly no mention of the context of why OPEC “tightened their spigots” in 1973. No mention at all.

Are you ready for the Israeli connection to this crisis that is almost uniformly covered up by the pro-Israel US media?

Here it is: In 1973, Egypt went to war against Israel in order to win back the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had stolen six years earlier in Israel’s infamous pre-emptive “Six Day War” in 1967 against her neighboring countries.

In that pre-emptive 1967 war, Israel not only stole the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, but also part of southern Lebanon, which Israel has since relinquished, and the Golan Heights from Syria, which is still being occupied to this day by Israeli forces, as well as The Palestinian Territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, now generally referred to as The Occupied Territories. Pro-Israel forces generally prefer to refer to the Occupied Territories as the “disputed territories”.

Egypt appeared to winning its retaliatory war against Israel in 1973, so Golda Meir, the American-Israeli Prime Minister of Israel at the time, worked with American-Israeli Henry Kissinger to pressure the US government to come to Israel’s rescue, which it did.

Therefore in a show of solidarity with Egypt, the Arab countries of OPEC “tightened their spigots” of gas and oil for export to the U.S.

There you have it: the real reason for the “oil crisis” of 1973. But the pro-Israel US media does not want Americans to realize that support for Israel has many negative effects on the lives of Americans, which includes potential politically induced “oil crises”, such as was obviously the case in 1973.

Pro-Israel forces in this country and around the world want to minimize the power of Arab countries which is mostly due to their oil resources. Therefore the pro-Israel forces are relying on the US government to directly control these resources primarily for Israel via wars, campaign contributions and a manipulative media. Pro-Israel people detest going to the gas station, because every time they pump gas into their cars, they angrily believe they are helping Arab Muslims (“terrorists”), whose land and resources Zionists view somehow as rightfully theirs. But of course, they don’t want the non-Zionist or unaware-of-it-all Americans to resent their US government’s support for Israel which can possibly mean paying more for gas in a future politically induced “oil crisis”, as it did in 1973.

Another example of the Israelization of America: have you been to the airports lately? The kinds of procedures at the US airports that you have been experiencing lately have always been the “norm” in Israel. This is a prime example of how Israel’s “war on terror” has SOMEHOW become America’s “war on terror” and how it directly impacts the lives of Americans. The “war on terror” is NOT about democracy. It’s an imperialistic war which will have no end if the Zionists (anyone who is pro-Israel) have their way, because it is unjust and breaks International Laws.

There is another aspect of the Israeli connection to the war on Iraq, which many people wish to believe is all about oil for the US, rather than the Zionist ideology that is actually the driving force behind the push for a war on the entire Middle East, which began with Afghanistan, and moved onward to Iraq, and threatens to expand to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria, which is not an oil exporting country (which just goes to show once again: it’s not just about the oil!)

PRO-ISRAEL FORCES WANT TO RE-OPEN A PIPELINE FROM IRAQ TO HAIFA, ISRAEL

The fact that American-Israelis in our government are endeavoring to use the war on Iraq as a way for Israel to gain control over oil in the Middle East is rarely reported in the mainstream pro-Israel US media with your average American readership, however it has been reported in Jewish newspapers with Jewish readership and in Israeli papers.

A case in point is the fact that American-Israelis in our government want to “re-open” or re-instate, the pipeline that used to exist between Iraq and Palestine, which is now specifically Haifa, Israel. When Israel was created in 1948, that pipeline was re-directed by Iraq to Syria. Now pro-Israel forces are actively seeking to cut off the pipeline to Syria and re-direct it to Haifa, Israel. For more information on this, please do a Google-search using such keywords such as “Iraq oil pipeline to Haifa, Israel” and see what you come up with.

Just as Israel’s connection to the war on Iraq has been kept out of the US mainstream media (as you may have noticed, Israel has not even been mentioned as one of our “allies” in the war on Iraq), this choice nugget of information with regards to Israel’s ambition to get a basically free supply of Iraqi oil is also kept out of view for vast American public consumption.

I could go on about all this (yes, there is much more) but I will stop here.

You get the picture, I hope. You won’t get it from the Zionized US mainstream media.

***********

<<<2) Desire to increase US military basing in the Gulf - with US strategic planning going back to 1975 as "The Kissinger Plan." #1 drives #2, which is designed to lock-out the EU, Russia India and/or China from gaining "control" over the largest hydrocarbon reserves>>>>

I agree....they've 12 or 14 bases either planned or in operation as we speak.

Alpha

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/12/14/u-s-invasion-of-iran-draws-closer.php

Alpha

The following is an email exchange with a retired US intel operative:

Don wrote:

It is strange that Feith and the Neocons talk about democratization of the Arab world. When the Turks refused to allow the US to attack Iraq through Turkey, the Israelis said that the Turkish Army should have leaned on the "democratic" Turkish government to force it comply with American demands. So much for democracy.
This is all a sham. "Democratization" means "subjugation" in Bush speak. Bush is a bigot and a piece of lint in Sharon's hip pocket.

Bush does not have the ground forces to attack Iran or Syria. He will have to resort to an air bombardment. Since no one knows where all the nuclear facilities are, the bombardment will be directed at dozens or hundreds of supposed targets, using deep penetration weapons. The Shiite world will explode. I think Iran will then attack us in Iraq, along with a million Iraqi Shiites. I hear that 50,000 Iranian troops are on alert to do just that. This could get to be messier than it is now.

-----Don

Hi Don,

One just has to read pages 261-269 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' to see that the Zionist neocons (Feith, Perle and Wurmser) couldn't give a damn about 'democracy' according to their 'A Clean Break' agenda written for Netanyahu which Bush basically has followed... Also, check out the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article by Professor Kevin MacDonald (whom I have been in touch with as well) via the link at the following URL as it conveys that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement and that the neocons were not interested in democracy and that supposed non-Jewish front men (like Rumsfeld) are used to hide the true (Zionist Jew) nature of the agenda:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/offsite_snieg_raimondo.htm

Check out the 'CIA Converted to Neoconism' message thread by scrolling down to it at the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/index.php

The following conveys exactly what you had written in your recent replies about the neocons wanting to go after Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Iran for the greater Israel (Likud) agenda:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

Here is the ‘Men from JINSA and CSP’ article from ‘The Nation’ which Fisk refers to in the above article (check out the ‘Destabilization of the CIA’ article linked in the right margin (as it was written by Jason Vest as well – he also wrote the ‘Implausible Denial’ articles about how the neocons via Cambone ordered the torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib):

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

Jason Vest co-wrote the ‘Lie Factory’ article for Mother Jones which you can access via the following URL:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/18/1734209

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target