- In recent weeks the news media has been overflowing with
reports on the increasing tension between the U.S. and Iran, supposedly
based on the Islamic country's unwillingness to drop its nuclear programs.
-
- A clear-cut case of another tyrannical nation whose government
needs to be ousted in order to make the world a safer place, it seems.
But WWNK has found information that's largely been flying under the radar
screen of the mainstream press and that might paint an entirely different
picture.
-
- On February 18, Scott Ritter, ex-Marine and former United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector who played a major
role in Iraq, dropped a bombshell during a speech delivered to an audience
in the Capitol Theater in Olympia, WA.
-
- The event's sponsor, United for Peace of Pierce County
(UFPPC), a Washington state activist group that nonviolently opposes "the
reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy,"
had invited Ritter and independent war journalist Dahr Jamail to talk about
the war in Iraq.
-
- In his speech, Ritter claimed that President George W.
Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran
planned for June 2005, citing an anonymous official as the source of this
information who -- according to Ritter -- was involved in the manipulation
of the election outcome in Iraq, which reduced the percentage of the vote
received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56 to 48 percent. Ritter also
stated that "this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist in a major metropolitan magazine," an allusion to New Yorker
reporter Seymour M. Hersh, believes the UFPPC.
-
- In a January 17 article in the New Yorker, Hersh had
written that "Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central
Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war
plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran."
-
- But why? Is Iran really such an imminent threat that
it would justify invading that country, with a U.S. army already stretched
to the max by its commitment in Iraq? Aside from the "official"
nuclear- threat argument, there may be other, economic, reasons that seem
far more logical.
-
- In October 2004, William Clark, award-winning writer
and author of the soon-to-be published book "Petrodollar Warfare:
Oil, Iraq, and the Future of the Dollar" (spring 2005), gave his opinion
on the reasons for a pending U.S.-Iran crisis in an essay titled "The
Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro- denominated
International Oil Market."
-
- Clark blames "unspoken macroeconomic drivers"
for the U.S.' determination to attack Iran, in particular the fact that
the Tehran government plans to open a euro-based oil exchange in 2005 or
early 2006, which, if successful, "would solidify the petroeuro as
an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's
hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency." This, says Clark,
would deliver a devastating blow to U.S. corporations, which own both the
London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX), the main global oil traders.
-
- All three current oil markers, the West Texas Intermediate
crude (WTI), the Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude are dollar-
denominated. Iran, however, has required payment in euros for its European
and Asian/ACU exports since spring 2003. "It would be logical to assume
the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker --
denominated in the euro currency," predicts Clark, a probable scenario
in light of the fact that "the European Union imports more oil from
OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45 percent
of imports into the Middle East."
-
- In June 2004, the UK Guardian noted that "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." BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, proud owners of the IPE since 2001, refused to comment. In light
of the fact that Iran, holder of the second biggest oil reserves worldwide
after Saudi Arabia, exports 2.7 million barrels of crude/day and produces
13 million tonnes of petrochemicals/year, the Guardian foresaw bright prospects
for the new oil exchange.
-
- That is not the only reason, though: Other recent events
indicate that Tehran's IPE and NYMEX competitor might be just what a large
part of the world has been waiting for. Not only has the euro substantially
risen against the dollar since late 2002 -- in May 2004, the countries
using the euro as their currency increased from 12 to 22. Within the last
two years, notes Clark, Russia as well as China raised their central bank
holdings of the euro, "which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate
the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second world reserve currency."
-
- According to a July 2004 article on Rigzone.com, an insider
website for the oil and gas industry, Chris Cook, a former IPE executive
turned independent consultant, commented that recently the Saudis too have
declared their interest in the project. Since 9/11, says Rigzone, "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."
-
- A lot of good reasons for the U.S. government to set
their eyes on regime change in Iran, says William Clark. And it wouldn't
be the first time, he says. His award-winning 2003 essay "The Real
Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq" suggests that Saddam Hussein
signed his own death warrant in 2000, when he announced that Iraq would
no longer accept US dollars for oil being sold under the UN oil-for-food
program, but that the country's official oil export transaction currency
would be switched to the euro.
|
