Diminishing Marginal Utility

Source: World Socialist Website

By Bill Van Auken
26 October 2007

In an act unprecedented in the history of international relations, Washington on Thursday unilaterally imposed harsh and potentially crippling economic sanctions against Iran’s main uniformed security force, as well as against more than 20 Iranian companies and the country’s three major banks.

The sanctions, announced by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, represent a deliberate provocation aimed at precluding any negotiated settlement to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and making a US war against the country all but inevitable.

In announcing the measures—which are considerably more punitive than those imposed by Washington during the seizure of the US embassy which followed the 1979 Iranian revolution—Rice said they were designed “to increase the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior.”

The sanctions are directed in the first instance against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the US government has now branded as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction,” and its Quds Force, which has been labeled a “supporter of terrorism.”

The Revolutionary Guards, a force of some 125,000, is responsible for law enforcement, border patrol and resistance against foreign attack. It also organizes Iran’s people’s militia, providing military training to some 12 million volunteers.

The Quds Force is a special unit within the Revolutionary Guards that handles overseas operations. It has acted in a number of countries with the direct approval of Washington.

In Bosnia, it provided arms to the US-backed Muslim government; in Afghanistan, it aided the forces fighting the Soviet military and then supported those fighting the Taliban; in Iraq, it assisted Kurdish guerrillas against the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.

Elsewhere, it has aided organizations opposed by the US, principally those resisting Israeli aggression, such as Hezbollah, the mass Shia movement in Lebanon, and organizations in the occupied Palestinian territories.

By imposing these designations upon the official armed forces of a sovereign state, the Bush administration is carrying out a brazen intervention into the internal affairs of Iran. In so doing, it is setting out a pseudo-legal framework for war, spelling out two alternative pretexts—weapons of mass destruction and terrorism—which are identical to those contrived and propagated in preparation for the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq.

Washington has charged that Iran is pursuing its nuclear program in order to construct a nuclear weapon. Tehran has denied this charge, insisting that it is utilizing the program for peaceful purposes, in particular, the development of an alternative power source.

In regard to the second casus belli, the Bush administration and some senior US military commanders have repeatedly accused Iran and the Quds Force, in particular, of arming, funding and training forces in Iraq responsible for attacks on US occupation troops.

Washington has yet to provide concrete evidence to back these charges and has produced no one that it can credibly claim is an Iranian agent engaged in these alleged activities. Tehran has denied responsibility for the attacks, which it points out are carried out in their great majority by Sunni resistance fighters, not the Shia movements with which the Iranians have enjoyed a longstanding relationship.

The sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards are aimed at inflicting significant damage to the Iranian economy. The Guards’ role in Iran includes far-ranging economic activities.

Its engineering unit, for example is involved in a number of major projects, ranging from a $2 billion contract for the development of the country’s main gas field, to a $1.3 billion contract for a new pipeline directed to Pakistan, to the construction of a Tehran metro extension, a high-speed rail link between the capital and Isfahan, shipping ports and a major dam.

The immediate impact of sanctions allowing the freezing of assets in US banks or barring US businesses from economic ties to the Iranian Guards, as well as the named Iranian bank and other companies, is negligible, given that Washington’s imposition of sanctions in response to the 1979 revolution that overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah had already largely frozen American banks and corporations out of the Iranian market.

Blackmailing foreign banks and corporations

The aim of these measures—which are far more sweeping than anything the US could hope to get passed in the United Nations—is to blackmail foreign banks and corporations with the threat that their continued operations inside Iran could lead to American-imposed penalties and exclusion from the US market.

Treasury Secretary Paulson called upon “responsible banks and companies around the world” to cut off all ties with the named bank, companies and all affiliates of the Revolutionary Guards. US officials have stressed that the Guards’ ties are so widespread that any economic relations whatsoever with Iran carry with them the threat of US retaliation.

The US action won quick endorsement from the British government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, according to some press reports, has also signaled its willingness to go along with eventual US air strikes against Iran. Brown appears prepared to play the same role that Blair played in paving the way for the invasion of Iraq, by pushing for the United Nations Security Council to impose another set of sanctions, a move that is opposed by Russia and China, both of which have substantial interests in Iran and hold veto power on the council. In 2003, Bush invoked the failure of the UN to pass a resolution authorizing military action as the pretext for unilaterally launching the US war.

Other European powers, however, were more cool towards Washington’s diktat. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeir said Thursday that any decision on further sanctions against Iran should await an evaluation of Iran’s willingness to answer more questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). German companies exported $5.7 billion worth of goods to Iran last year, while the German Economics Ministry granted the government in Tehran $1.2 billion in export credit guarantees.

Iran’s new nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, joined by his predecessor, Ali Larijani, held two days of talks this week with the European Union’s foreign policy director, Javier Solana, in Rome to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program. At the end of the talks Wednesday, the Iranian negotiators joined Solana and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi in a joint press conference in Rome. Both sides described the talks as “constructive,” while Prodi insisted that “dialogue is the only way to find a solution for Iran’s nuclear program in the UN Security Council and Italy encourages this way.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin voiced a harsh reaction to the US sanctions. Meeting with European Union leaders at a summit in Portugal, he insisted that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program should be resolved through negotiations, along the lines of those pursued with North Korea.

“Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action?” Putin said. In an obvious characterization of Bush, he continued, “Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation.”

Iran dismissed the US sanctions. “The hostile policies of America against the respectful Iranian nation and our legal organizations are against international regulations and have no value,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini. “Such ridiculous measures cannot rescue the Americans from the crisis they themselves have created in Iraq.”

Speaking at a conference on “Privatization in Iran” held in Dubai for foreign investors, the head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines, Mohammad Nahvandian, said that while the sanctions could lead to “an increase in costs,” they could not “disturb or stop Iran’s massive trade relations with other countries.”

The principal aim of the sanctions, however, appears to be not so much economic as political. By increasing tensions, they are designed to slam the door on any negotiated settlement of the nuclear dispute and pave the way for US military action.

In that sense they are of a piece with the steady escalation of threats against Iran, including Bush’s warning last week about “World War III” and Cheney’s threat last Sunday that Iran would face “serious consequences” if it continued on its present course, and that the US would not “stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.”

Fresh evidence of US war preparations against Iran came in the details of the nearly $200 billion budget request sent to Congress last Monday for funding the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Included was nearly $88 million for fitting “bunker-busting” bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. Some lawmakers and congressional aides pointed out that there is little use for such weapons in the current counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the bombs were in all likelihood intended for attacking Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

As the Bush administration prepares for yet another war, the Democrats in Congress have once again emerged as willing accomplices. The administration’s imposition of sanctions was actually prefigured by legislation passed in the Democratic-led House—by an overwhelming 397-16 vote—that would impose sanctions on non-US energy companies doing business in Iran.

While Democratic leaders claimed the measure was intended to cut off funding for Iran’s nuclear program, its real intention is evident. American oil conglomerates frozen out of the Iranian market want to deny their competitors any advantage.

In the final analysis, the propaganda about nuclear threats and terrorism notwithstanding, a US war against Iran would be launched to impose American capitalism’s hegemonic control over the strategic oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Pravda.ru

25.10.2007
By Sergei Malinin, Bigness.ru
Translated by Guerman Grachev' Pravda.ru

The United States is unlikely to have the best investment environment in the next five years, according to Evgeni Nadorchin, a chief economist at Trust bank. Bigness.ru requested Nadorshin to comment on recent developments in the U.S. securities market.

The last week brought sad news for the White House. To begin with, Japanese companies agreed to make payments in yens for Iran’s crude imports last Tuesday. The Japanese had previously paid for Iranian oil in the U.S. dollar. In fact, Iran had earlier signed an agreement on the yen payments for its crude exports with a number of small-sized Japanese refineries. Two leading Japanese oil exporters of Iranian crude joined the agreement last Tuesday. Japan is one of the world’s major oil exporters. The country has sent a clear message to the global oil market by switching to the yen in its payments for Iran’s oil.

“The dollar isn’t a convenient currency for Iran’s oil receipts for political reasons. The dollar payments for oil are made via correspondent accounts at U.S. banks,” Nadorshin said, in an interview to Bigness.ru. “Keeping in mind that Iran is listed by the U.S. government among the countries of the “axis of evil,” the U.S. government is not only aware of those accounts, it can control them. The U.S. government even blocked certain accounts in the past,” Nadorshin added. From the technical point of view, it would be more difficult for the United States to block such accounts in a Japanese bank.

A mere 15 percent of Iran’s oil income is now being paid in the dollar. The biggest part of Iran’s income (65 percent) from crude exports is in euros. The yen payments account for 15 percent of Iran’s oil income.

Another of the last week’s unpleasant surprise for the dollar economy was of Asian origin. According to data released by the U.S. Treasury last Tuesday, the region’s major economies, namely, Japan, China and Taiwan unloaded some of U.S. Treasury bonds from their foreign reserves. The amount of U.S. Treasury bonds shed by the three countries totals $52 billions.

Compared with the countries’ aggregate amount of foreign reserves, which are worth trillions of dollars, the above sum is fairly small. However, the fact is of importance: Japan, China and Taiwan cut their investments in U.S. Treasure bonds to a record low in the last five years.

The United States have expressed concern about the move since the above three economies plus Hong Kong and South Korea account for 51 percent ($1.14 trillion) of the total amount of foreign investments in U.S. Treasury bonds.

Tougher times could be in store for the U.S. Treasury following all those developments if the government fails to curb inflation, according to Mark Ostwald, an analyst at Insigner de Beaufort.

“The Asian banks didn’t plan shedding their dollar reserves completely,” Nadorshin said in his interview to Bigness.ru. He stressed the point that $52 billion is a drop in the water for the countries “whose combined foreign reserves exceed two trillion U.S. dollars.” The move falls into the trend of the last several years i.e. the dollar proportion of foreign reserves is on the decrease.

Nadorshin reminded that U.S. Treasury bonds were traditionally considered gilt-edged securities.

However, now investors are concerned about the fact that they bought assets in a currency that is growing increasingly weaker. Besides, the U.S. economy may be heading for a recession.

The unloading of dollar assets was inevitable. On the contrary, the last several weeks have seen an inflow of $11 billion to investment funds that put money in the developing markets e.g. Russia.

Speaking of the negative impact on the U.S. economy in the wake of the events that occurred last week, Nadorshin argued that they might indicate a long-term economic crisis the global superpower is currently going through. “The U.S. economy has been showing its weakness throughout the year. It’s a weakness that prevents the economy from keeping the dollar strong against other currencies as the main unit of account. The economy has to tackle a number of issues including deficits and structural issues. The economic measures proved to be ineffective in resolving any of those issues. The country recently experienced a suprime mortgage crisis that will probably help them resolve the issues, which they tried to resolve by increasing interest rates,” Nadorshin said in his interview to Bigness.ru

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:06 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Prudent Investor

The Federal Reserve Dollar may be in for another big punch. Gulfnews banking editor Babu Das Augustine has raised the possibility that OPEC may switch from dollars to another currency, furthermore reducing the demand for the Dollar which gets shunned by more and more oil producing countries. Iran only accepts Euros or Yen and Venezuela dumped the greenback while countries in the gulf region move their funds away from it too.
According to Das Augustine,

"Asset diversification by the Gulf sovereign wealth funds and the possibility that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will change the pricing of oil from the dollar to another currency could mean more trouble for the dollar."

Quatar and Vietnam announced only a few days ago that they were shifting away from the ailing currency that was never worth less than nowadays.

Analysts see the admission by Qatar as a signal that regional state-owned funds are moving away from the dollar.

Qatar has admitted that its investment fund has been diversifying their portfolios to compensate for the decline of the dollar. It would be naive to think that other Gulf funds are loyal to the dollar at the cost of heavy portfolio losses," said a Dubai-based investment banker.

During the past 12 months, companies, mainly state-owned investment arms and private equity firms from the GCC, have quietly acquired more than $50 billion in assets worldwide with Asia's and Europe's shares together accounting for more than 55 per cent.

The state-owned Kuwait Investment Authority, with assets of more than $150 billion, last year increased the Asian share of its portfolio to 20 per cent from 10 per cent.

Although gulf central banks have been discussing asset diversification in the past two years, there hasn't been any evidence of a major shift. The size of assets held by Gulf central banks are relatively small compared to the funds managed by the state-owned investment funds.

According to IMF estimates, global investment funds managed by governments control an estimated $2.5 trillion, outstripping hedge funds. Morgan Stanley estimates these assets could rise to $12 trillion by 2015, roughly the size of the US economy. Gulf countries account for a major share of these funds.

Currency market analysts believe that the gulf sovereign funds' gradual move away from the dollar is a precursor to OPEC opting for a different currency in which to price oil.

"If the dollar were to lose its lustre as a reserve currency this could prove disruptive to the global financial system," Merrill Lynch said in a research note.

"Pricing oil in dollars might have made sense when there was a paucity of other relatively stable currencies and when the Middle East imported more from the US - but not any-more," said an analyst.

I guess it is safe to say that the exodus from the first completely unbacked reserve currency in the world's history has begun - and will not stop. A strong reason for this is the fact that the USA has very little to offer in terms of sought-after export goods besides weapons, aircraft and gas guzzling oversize cars whose low MPG ratios can only be afforded by oil producing countries anymore.

Anybody counter my bet that another fiat currency experiment will be coming to an end in the next decade?
Before you lose your money; remember that ALL fiat currencies of the past 350 years have returned to their intrinsic value. Gold has NEVER lost its value in the past 3,500 years!

For some background about the role of the Federal Reserve Dollar in commodities markets click here.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 04:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Middle East Times

September 13, 2007

TEHRAN -- Iran's foreign currency reserves held in banks abroad have risen to $65 billion as of the end of June 2007, on the back of high crude oil prices, media reported Thursday.

The figure represents a jump of 37 percent on the same period, a year earlier, Iran's central bank said in a statement quoted by the Hamshahri newspaper.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, and the second in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has been helped by soaring crude prices that are helping the country weather domestic economic problems.

Amid US threats of further sanctions action over its nuclear program, Iran has announced it is switching its foreign reserves out of US dollars into euros and other currencies, to prevent damage to its economy from the US pressure.

However, the central bank is still accounting the total foreign currency reserves in US dollars.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Wall Street Journal Online

By JUDY SHELTON
August 30, 2007; Page A10

American fighter jets scrambled to intercept Russian bombers earlier this month near the island of Guam. It was the first time since the end of the Cold War that the Kremlin sought to provoke a U.S. response. It likely will not be the last. Fueled by revenues from energy exports, Russia appears bent on ratcheting up tensions.

But don't expect the next foray to take place over international waters. Vladimir Putin laid bare his ambitions at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June by calling for a "new international financial architecture" to provide a base for economic development. Russia's next move is to challenge U.S. supremacy in world financial markets.

The notion of nudging America off its central perch in global economic affairs hardly seems plausible. But Russia's leader strikes a chord with other emerging-market economies -- Brazil, China, India -- when he describes current monetary and financial arrangements as "archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy."

Given the recent turmoil in world financial markets, Mr. Putin can expect heightened interest in his pitch for new regional alliances "based on trust and mutually beneficial integration" versus continued dependence on global institutions like the International Monetary Fund. Both Europe and Asia blame U.S. credit woes for their own unsettled markets. And newly independent nations on the periphery of established trade and security blocs have their own reasons to align with powerful patrons.

Mr. Putin even suggests that central banks should begin to hold reserves in a wider selection of currencies than dollars and euros in recognition of the "existing balance of power." It's hard to miss the implication: the ruble as a global reserve currency.

Is the man serious? The only reason the European Central Bank, say, or China's central bank, might hold reserves in rubles would be to pay for purchases from Russia. Today it is possible to buy Russian oil and gas using dollars or euros. The leading market exchanges for conducting international energy transactions are located in New York and London. But that is why officials at the White House, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury should be scrambling right now.

Mr. Putin is more than serious. He is determined to establish a world-class oil exchange on Russian territory and shift energy business away from existing global financial centers. A new facility is being readied in St. Petersburg's historic Bourse -- an imposing, white-colonnaded Greek Revival building that dominates the majestic sweep of the Strelka, or Spit, of Vasilievsky Island in the Neva delta and which is visible from the Winter Palace -- that will open to market traders within months and where transactions will be denominated in rubles.

It's a daring gambit and it constitutes no less than a demand for new international monetary arrangements on the scale of the post-World War II Bretton Woods agreement. "The global economy has experienced a transition," Mr. Putin notes pointedly. "Fifty years ago, 60% of world gross domestic product came from the Group of Seven industrial nations. Today 60% of world GDP comes from outside the G7."

Mr. Putin's plan to confront the privileged global role of U.S. currency resonates with Russians eager to recapture nationalist pride. Lampooning the sickly American dollar is popular with members of the Kremlin-financed youth group Nashi (meaning "ours"). And it potentially accommodates the burgeoning economic aspirations and swelling egos of Russia's partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and China.

China, like Russia, bristles at its second-tier status within the global financial architecture. Harangued by the U.S. over exchange-rate policies, China has recently been flexing its monetary muscle by hinting that it might dump a portion of its considerable dollar reserves. The prospect of such a shock to the U.S. economy in the midst of a housing slump threatens to bring the whole edifice crashing down. Throw in statements of support from oil-producers Venezuela and Iran, and you have the makings of a devastating dollar rout.

If Russia insists that its energy clients pay in rubles, we cannot expect our allies to strenuously resist. Europe purchases nearly 30% of its energy from Russia. Rising energy demand in Asia will likewise boost demand for rubles as Russia targets China, India and Japan. Last month, Japan quietly acquiesced to Iran's request that it switch from dollars to yen in payment for Iranian oil.

Can U.S. leaders and financial authorities meet the challenge from the Kremlin? Is America prepared to offer its own proposals for establishing more stable currency and financial conditions for global trade? Or are we just interested in protecting our turf?

The next Bretton Woods should be launched as an earnest initiative from the nation that gave birth to democratic capitalism. Not as an act of aggression from a pumped-up Russian pretender.

Ms. Shelton is an economist and author of "Money Meltdown" (Free Press, 1994).

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 07:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Oh My News

When will the country's oil bourse finally start trading?

Angelique van Engelen (clixy123)
Published 2007-08-15 15:08 (KST)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reshuffling the oil ministry. He says, this way, he hopes to deliver on his promise to redistribute wealth. He's also sacked the industry minister. And next on the agenda is the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

It's not the first time Ahmadinejad's gone about rearranging the furniture back home. But so far, he's tended to project his zest for change to officials dealing with the outside world. Shortly after coming into power two years ago, his replacing 40 ambassadors sent out a strong message -- the Iranian president was unlikely to budge over the nuclear program his country was running.

The replacement of the oil and industry ministers is explained as a tactical move by the Iranian president to increase his control over areas that he believes key to economic prosperity. So now, there's no outside world that he can pitch the rationale for his action against. What's more, the move draws attention to one of Ahmadinejad's failures as president. Having been elected on a highly populist agenda, he's not delivered many of the goodies he promised in his election campaign in 2005. His luring promises to a young population faced with high levels of unemployment, were to the average Iranian just what the country needed.

Ahmadinejad offered to drag the fledgling economy out of the mess it was in and oil revenues were going to be a key factor in this plan. However, Ahmadinejad's plan to reshape the oil sector has been met with strong resistance from within the industry. The oil minister that was sacked, Kazem Vaziri Mahaneh, is known to be highly opposed to restructuring the industry.

Plans to open an Iranian oil bourse to compete with NYMEX in New York and the IPE in London have been continuously deferred for the past two years. At least three deadlines have expired without any progress being made. The bourse, which will be located in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East.

Outside observers say the potential for an oil-trading platform in the Middle East is promising but its main risk will be stability. Oil markets, like currency markets, react much more intensely to political instability than other capital markets. The Iranian nuclear issue won't do the country any favors in creating the best circumstances for a successful oil bourse.

According to many observers, Saddam Hussein's plan to swap dollars into euros was the main reason behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 02:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: WashingtonPost.com

U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A01

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Reuters

Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:20PM EDT
By Lucia Mutikani

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) - Iran's decision to switch some dollar-based oil revenues to the Japanese yen was negative for U.S. government bond market sentiment, but would not make a dent on the flow of petrodollars into Treasuries.

Analysts said although Iran held a small fraction of government bonds, its initiative to ditch the falling dollar was further confirmation of diversification away from the currency and related assets.

"It's negative for Treasuries overall because it does fit with the idea that there is a diversification away from the use of the dollar by various means," said Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller, Tabak & Co. in New York.

Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil producer, confirmed this week it had asked Japanese customers to pay for crude oil in yen instead of dollars, a move it said was aimed at maximizing oil export revenue. It is locked in a row with the United States over its nuclear program.

Foreign purchases of Treasuries by institutions such as central banks and oil producing countries have helped keep government bonds yields lower in recent years even as the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark overnight lending rate to 5.25 percent.

But the dollar's poor performance has resulted in a gradual diversification in the composition of foreign central bank currency reserves.

"The proportion of money held by central banks in dollars is shrinking. It was once 70 percent and now it's in the mid-60s. Diversification is a key theme that is negative for the dollar and Treasuries, and that has been the case this year," said Crescenzi.

IDEAglobal currency strategist David Powell estimates Iran supplies about 15 percent of Japan's oil imports, roughly translating into $10 billion annually and suggesting little or no impact on petrodollar flows.

"It does not have a huge implication. They probably weren't keeping this $10 billion in Treasuries, more likely in short-term instruments. Iran is not a country that is flush with cash as other oil producing countries are," said Powell.

U.S. government data on Tuesday showed oil exporting nations raised their Treasury holdings by $9.1 billion to $121.3 billion in May.

When British holdings, viewed as including Middle Eastern accounts using London-based accounts, are factored in, about $42.2 billion worth of petrodollars were pumped into Treasuries in May.

"That is more than four times the annual sales in oil from Iran to Japan. Iran is not leading the trend for oil producing or Middle Eastern countries as far as the data shows us," said Powell.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: TheTrumpet.com

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Iran has asked Japanese oil refiners to pay for all future deliveries in yen, as opposed to dollars, according to a letter obtained by Bloomberg News.

The request is “effective immediately” for all “forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings” according to the July 10 letter signed by the National Iranian Oil Company’s general manager of crude oil marketing and exports.

Until now, most Japanese oil importers have used U.S. dollars to purchase Iranian oil. Although confirmation of Japanese oil payments in yen is still forthcoming, as one investment securities analyst in Tokyo said, “What else can Japan do but to accept the request, once the oil producer sent its wish?”

Japan needs the oil, and with energy markets as tight as they are, alternative supplies will be very difficult to come by. Iran is Japan’s third-largest supplier of crude, exceeded only by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Since 1944, with the signing of the Bretton Woods agreement, the U.S. dollar has been the world’s reserve currency, meaning it is the currency used by governments and institutions to settle their debts and to transact trade in vital commodities such as gold and oil. To conduct international trade, countries were compelled to accumulate dollars and build reserves. Consequently, the increased demand for the dollar gave the U.S. economic benefits not available to other countries and permitted the U.S. to run large trade deficits and fiscal debts without experiencing most of the negative economic impacts normally associated with such large imbalances.

That is beginning to change.

Iran requiring Japan to pay for oil in yen is just the latest move by a nation seeking to reduce its dependence on the dollar. Earlier this year, officials from Chinese-owned Zhuhai Zhenrong Trading, Iran’s biggest crude oil customer, confirmed that they now pay for Iranian crude in euros.

Russia is preparing to sell oil priced in rubles and plans to open the Energy Stock Exchange in St. Petersburg in the first half of 2008, according to a ubs AG report dated June 14. In 2005, Norway’s Bourse Director Sven Arild Andersen said that a Scandinavian oil bourse conducting transactions primarily in euros should be set up.

Many nations are also beginning to diversify their foreign currency reserves away from the dollar, often to the euro.

Central banks in South Korea, China and Taiwan have all announced plans to diversify away from the dollar. Last year Russia, Syria and Italy also said they intended to reduce their dollar holdings. Last Wednesday, Japan’s adviser to the prime minister said Tokyo should diversify its reserves away from dollars, and spend its greenbacks on higher-yielding assets. Bloomberg notes that Japan is the largest overseas holder of U.S. treasuries; as such, it has historically been one of the strongest supporters of the dollar.

Announcements like these have caused the dollar to fall like a rock recently, hitting record lows against the euro, pound and other currencies.

Demand for the dollar is eroding—and trade for oil in other currencies is accelerating this trend. Time will tell how quickly other nations will break away from the dollar as the global currency of commerce. The result could be disastrous for Americans.

“Once the dollar loses its reserve currency status and the collapse ensues, the process of returning to economic viability will be a painful one,” says Peter Schiff, president of EuroPacific Capital, in his book Crash Proof. “Whether the United States is up to the task remains to be seen. Although I am skeptical, I nonetheless remain hopeful.”

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 07:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Free-Market News Network

By Noel Gibeson
Thursday, January 11, 2007

In the petrodollar wars, stage one was Iraq and stage two is Iran. Both dared to propose to use the euro instead of the U.S. dollar (USD) to buy Middle East oil. That was a big mistake because it jeopardized the solvency of the USD, a fiat currency; and, therefore, the very heart of the U.S. economy itself. Big business will not stand for that.

What is a fiat currency? A fiat currency in the case of the USD is a currency that is NOT based on gold, silver, or anything else of tangible value; but rather it is "a promise to pay." Essentially, it is an IOU ("I owe you") note that is based on the good faith and credit of the issuer that it will be redeemed at the face value of the note, a USD in this case. This is its weakness for holders of the note, but its strength for the issuer of the currency, in this case the U.S. government who simply continues to print as much money as it wants to in hopes that it will never have to redeem these dollars at their face value all at one time. It is much like an international Ponzi scheme. In reality, it is play money or monopoly money.

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters in "Eyeing Iran" (NYP, January 8, 2007) described the new U.S. military Middle East leadership lineup with General Patreus going to Iraq and Admiral Fallon going to CENTCOM as a sign for the future. Appointing a naval officer to command CENTCOM for the first time is seen as a harbinger of things to come with regard to Iraq, Somalia, and in particular, Iran. The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean are key geographical areas in this region. Any attempts by Iran (or anyone else for that matter) to block key strategic geographic features, such as the Strait of Hormuz, or otherwise impede the transport of oil or strategic materials could be met with an instantaneous naval military response. The presence of increased naval forces in the area could also be a sign of potential military action.

What has become more even important than national boundaries, according to Anthony Wile in High Alert (High Alert Publishing, 2007), is the control and domination exercised by global elites over the economies of nations and the destinies of people. Few people are aware of this relationship and this excellent book goes into detail describing how this works. These are the forces that are currently in play worldwide that affect the U.S., Iraq, and Iran, among many other nations.

So when Iraq President Saddam Hussein said in 2000 that Iraq would begin selling Iraqi oil using the euro instead of the USD he instantly became a marked man. Why; because it is vital to the solvency of U.S. fiat currency that there are many foreign holders of the USD in order to keep it afloat; to keep it solvent. This is particularly important in the oil markets where trade must be conducted using the USD that the United States set as the standard long ago for oil purchases. This was done on purpose (Krassimir Petrov, "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse," Energy Bulletin, January 26, 2006).

Iran's plan to compete with dollar-dominated and American-owned New York's NYMEX and London's IPE, met with frosty reception from the beginning and things never got better. Because of the United States' high debt levels and stated neo-conservative quest for world domination, the euro inroads to establish a foothold in the dollar-dominated world oil market and posed a direct threat both to the U.S. dollar and to the U.S. economy (William Clark, "The Real Reasons Why Iran is the next Target," Energy Bulletin, October 26, 2004).

The chief obstacle to establishment of a euro-denominated marker has been the three dollar-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil markers as they are referred to in the industry. They are the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Bent crude, and the Dubai crude. Since 2003 Iran has been selling their oil exports to Europe and Asia/ACU in euros. However, in 2004 when Iran announced that it intended to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse that was euro-based, that sent shockwaves through the U.S.-dominated international oil industry because it would compete with the U.S. owned NYMEX and IPE. That set Iran on a path of confrontation with the United States (William Clark, Oil, Iraq, and the Future of the Dollar, New Society Publishers, 2005).

While the United States has no bone with the people of Iran who are generally viewed with great favor in the U.S., it does have a major problem with the Ahmadinejad government of Iran for two reasons; first, their desire to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse, and second, their continued development of a nuclear weapons along with their vow to destroy Israel. Israel would never allow this to happen, nor would the United States.

But perhaps a sin even greater than continued nuclear weapons development has been their quest to establish the Iranian Oil Bourse.

For contrast, North Korea has an even more developed nuclear weapons program and is guilty of proliferating missile technology to Pakistan, Indian and Iran, yet the U.S. does not seem interested in invading them, at least so far. What is the difference? North is not an oil producer, whereas, Iran not only is a major oil producer but intends to setup a non-dollar denominated oil bourse as well. That is why Iran is the next U.S. target.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Axis of Logic

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
By Krassimir Petrov
Dec 29, 2006, 05:48

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.

Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.

Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.

Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem—to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world—that barbarous relic called gold.

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

Recommended Reading
William Clark “The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq”
William Clark “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target”

About the Author
Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

Also by this author
“China’s Great Depression”
“Masters of Austrian Investment Analysis”
“Austrian Analysis of U.S. Inflation”
“Oil Performance in a Worldwide Depression”
See: www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/main.html

~~~~~ Notes from the Editor of Energy Bulletin~~~~~

An excellent and thought provoking article by Krassimir Petrov!

However, I think perhaps it's not entirely correct to state that "critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields." The Bush regime are probably aiming to set themselves up as policeman of the Middle East oil fields, 'protecting' oil supply to Asia and Europe in return for various advantages at any future negotiation tables. Meanwhile billions of dollars of unaccountable no-bid contracts have been handed to corporations with ties to Bush administration, and the Iraqi oil industry is set to be privatised. So the reasons for the war are rich and varied. However Petrov has given us one of the clearest explanations yet of one of the most important, and certainly least understood, motivations for the war.

-AF

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Times Online UK

December 22, 2006
Carl Mortished, International Business Editor

Iran is selling more of its oil for payment in euros than dollars as it seeks to shift its foreign currency reserves away from the depreciating currency of its political enemy, the United States.

The world’s fourth-biggest oil exporter has inserted a clause in its oil contracts allowing it to request payment in alternative currencies.

Gholanhossein Nozari, the managing director of National Iranian Oil Company, said that 57 per cent of Iran’s income from oil exports was now received in euros.

The move reflects a political desire for less reliance on the dollar, as well as a need to avoid further depreciation in currency reserves. Iran’s dollar holdings are thought to have fallen from 40 per cent of currency reserves to just a third.

Iran announced plans in 2004 to develop an Iranian oil bourse, a commodity exchange that would become a Middle Eastern rival to the major exchanges in New York, London and Singapore, which set benchmark oil prices.

The Iranian bourse would also challenge the petrodollar by setting oil prices in euros. However, there has been little progress in establishing the bourse, which failed to launch as planned last March.

A spokesman for National Iranian Oil Company said that the switch to euros for oil payments would not affect the pricing of Iranian oil. “Our oil contracts are still based on the dollar because the international market assessments are in US dollars,” he said.

Iran’s decision to switch currencies extends a trend among big oil exporters moving from the dollar as they seek protection from a continuing slide in the petrocurrency’s value. In October Russia said it would diversify its currency reserves into Japanese yen. Overall, Russia is believed to have let its dollar holdings slip and they are now equal with euros.

The dollar’s slide protected non-dollar oil importers from the escalation in the price of fuel early this year. Oil was $63 per barrel at the beginning of January, rose to $74 at the start of July and has fallen back to $63 per barrel this month. However, translated into euros, the rise is less impressive — from €53 a barrel to a peak of €58 before a sharp decline to €48.

The fall in the dollar against major currencies has had a dramatic impact on the revenues of oil exporters and has exacerbated the rumbling anti- American feeling in the Gulf.

In March the United Arab Emirates said that it would switch 10 per cent of its currency reserves from dollars to euros, a decision that closely followed the attempt by the US Congress to block the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of a number of ports in the United States.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Bloomberg

By Bill Varner

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.

The measure demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects that the U.S. and its European allies have said may lead to the development of nuclear weapons. It freezes the financial assets of 12 named individuals and 11 groups such as the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

The resolution also requires the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report on Iran's compliance within 60 days. ``Further appropriate measures'' such as economic penalties and severance of diplomatic relations will be required if Iran doesn't comply, it says.

``We are sending Iran an unambiguous message that there are serious repercussions to its continued disregard of its obligations and defiance of this body,'' U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said. ``We look forward to Iran's full, unconditional and immediate compliance with this resolution.''

The vote, the result of more than two months of negotiations largely aimed at winning Russia's support, occurred as the U.S. and Britain are close to increasing naval power in the Persian Gulf in a display of military resolve, the New York Times reported, citing unidentified Pentagon and military officials.

Serious Message

``Russia views this resolution as a serious message being sent to Iran regarding the need more actively and more openly to cooperate with the IAEA to lift or resolve the remaining concerns relating to their nuclear program,'' Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. ``We hope that Iran will correctly and very seriously perceive the contents of this resolution and take the necessary measures to redress their situation.''

The Security Council action will likely add to tensions in the region and may contribute to rising oil prices in 2007, according to Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based organization that analyzes political risk for businesses. Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Middle East.

``Oil markets won't move very much on this resolution,'' Bremmer said. ``But we think Iran is one of the biggest risks out there and that there will be escalation of tensions in 2007 as Iran retaliates. They can disrupt markets by driving proxy wars in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.''

Retaliation

Senior Iranian lawmakers said today that their parliament might retaliate by blocking inspections by the IAEA, according to IRNA, the state-run Iranian news agency. Legislation to suspend inspections has been passed by the parliament's security and foreign affairs committee, the agency reported.

At the UN, Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said suspension of enrichment activities was ``not a solution,'' that it was instead a ``temporary, stop-gap measure'' that didn't work from November 2003 to February 206. Without specifying how Iran would react to the vote, he said the ``days of bullying, pressure and intimidation by some nuclear-weapons holders are gone.''

Zarif said the Security Council was guilty of hypocrisy for taking no action against Israel after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to confirm recently that Israel has nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and its European allies, Zarif said, which ``pushed this council to take groundless punitive measures against Iran's peaceful nuclear program, have systematically prevented any action to nudge the Israeli regime towards submitting itself to the rules governing the nuclear non-proliferation regime.''

Russia agreed to vote for the resolution after Britain, France and Germany dropped a proposed travel ban on Iranian officials and narrowed the scope of the trade embargo to ``proliferation sensitive'' materials and technology. An earlier version of the text, first circulated in October, would have banned any item that could contribute to Iran's nuclear or missile programs.

Nuclear Power Plant

The resolution's sponsors also deleted any mention of the Bushehr commercial nuclear power plant that Russia is helping Iran build. An earlier text would have barred delivery of fuel to the plant.

``It is an important symbolic move, but it is hard to see that this puts sufficient pain on Iran to compel it to do anything,'' said Bruce Reidel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. ``At best, this is a warning shot across the bow of the Iranian state, a long way from authorizing the use of force.''

Iran ignored a July 31 resolution requiring it to suspend enrichment activities by Aug. 31, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma-deen-ah-ZHAD, has said his government will continue its nuclear program.

Vigilance

The resolution creates a Security Council committee to monitor implementation of the sanctions and calls on UN member nations to ``exercise vigilance'' regarding the international travel of the 12 Iranian officials and any ``specialized teaching or training'' of Iranian nationals.

UN member governments are to report to the committee within 60 days on steps they have taken to implement the resolution.

The sanctions would be suspended by Iran's decision to suspend enrichment activities and terminated by a report that the government in Tehran has complied with all UN Security Council and IAEA requirements.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in a conference call with reporters that the U.S. would follow the vote with new efforts to persuade other nations to enact the same type of financial and trade sanctions on Iran that the U.S. has had in place for 27 years.

``Russia and China tell us that want to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability,'' Burns said. ``We want to see more vigorous action by them. We would like to see them stop selling arms to Iran and limit export credits to Iran. We think it is time to an end for business as usual.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner in the United Nations at wvarner_at_bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 23, 2006 13:02 EST

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Wikipedia

Iran is planning to open a commodity exchange, referred as 'Iran Petroleum Exchange', 'International Oil Bourse' or 'Iranian Oil Bourse'. A Petrobourse for Petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various non-dollar currencies, primarily the Euro. If successful, this would establish a euro-based pricing mechanism for oil trading, or oil marker as it is called by traders.

The acronym 'IOB' has been used as it can be interpreted as either "International Oil Bourse" or "Iranian Oil Bourse", but it has no official status.

The geographical location is expected to be the Persian Gulf island of Kish (which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.)[1].
Contents

Background

The three current oil markers are all US dollar denominated: North America's West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYME) in New York City and the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London. The proposed Iranian bourse would establish a fourth oil marker, denominated by the euro.

Timeline

The Iranian oil bourse, first reported in 2005, was to have a planned opening date of March 20, 2006 [2], which is the Iranian New Year, Nauroz. According to an April 2005 report, the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE), the Wimpole Consortium and a private staff fund for retired petroleum workers will together form the consortium developing the exchange [3].

In January 2006, Chris Cook of the Wimpole Consortium referred to delays in the process due to the election to the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and subsequent difficulty in appointing a new oil minister acceptable both to the president and parliament [4].

In March 2006, the Petroleum Minister of Iran, Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, announced that due to "technical glitches", the Bourse launch was postponed, with no new date set. [5]. However, as of April 26 Iran had restarted its move to open the oil market, and Kazem announced the bourse was set to open the first week of May [6].

In May 2006, Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davud Danesh-Jafari said the Oil Ministry has a two-month deadline for presenting the Articles of Association of the Iranian Oil Bourse. Danesh-Jafari said that the Euro had not yet been finalized as the legal tender of transactions in the oil bourse, and the final decision about that depends upon the Oil Ministry’s proposed IOB Articles of Association [7]

During the first phase of its implementation, the Iranian Oil Bourse plans to offer financial derivatives relating to crude oil.

In July 2006, a building has been purchased and the projected opening date is September 2006. [8] On September 15, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh stated that all preparatory requirements had been arranged for launching the oil stock market in the country.[9]

In December 2006 Bloomberg cited two Iranian newspapers reporting Iran's Minister of Economy Davoud Danesh-Ja'fariIran as wanting to cut US dollar based transactions to a minimum.[10] Iran-Kyrgyzstan Joint Economic Commission will credit 50 Million Euros to Kyrgyzstan for primarily industrial joint projects, showing a strong commitment to large Euro dealing. [citation needed]

See also

* Ministry of Petroleum of Iran
* Petrobourse
* Petroeuro
* Petrodollar
* Petroruble
* Petrodollar warfare
* Economy of Iran

Citations

1. ^ Kish Oil Exchange Planned, Iran Daily, January 24, 2006
2. ^ The Iranian line in the sand, Dan Crawford, The Republic (Vancouver), August 18 to 31, 2005
3. ^ A star rises in the east, Stella Farrington, April 2005
4. ^ Speaking freely: What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about, Chris Cook, January 21, 2006, Asia Times/energybulletin.net
5. ^ A frenzied Persian new year, March 22, 2006, Asia Times
6. ^ Iran oil bourse next week, April 26, 2006, Iranian.ws
7. ^ Ministry to offer IOB Articles of Association in two months, May 19, 2006, Mehr News Agency
8. ^ Iranian Journel, building has been purchased and new date is September, accessed July 6 2006
9. ^ Iran's oil bourse to be launched, September 15, 2006, Mehr News Agency
10. ^ Iran May Reduce Use of Dollar, Tehran Papers Say, December 6, 2006, Bloomberg

Literature

* Clark, William R.: Petrodollar Warfare : Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, New Society Publishers, 2005, ISBN 0-86571-514-9

External links

* PetroTalk Portal for petro related Articles, Discussion, Links and more
* infowars article, infowars, May 9, 2006
* Iran oil bourse next week, Persian Journal, Apr 26, 2006
* Iran takes on west's control of oil trading, The Guardian
* The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
* Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
* The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
* Trading oil in euros – does it matter?
* Will the Iranian Oil Bourse Threaten the Dollar?
* Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran, Centre for Research on Globalization, February 10, 2006
* The Iranian line in the sand
* Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict
* The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
* The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target
* Will Iran’s oil kill the U.S. dollar?
* Strange ideas about the Iranian oil bourse (a counterpoint with countercounterpoints in comments...)
* Why Iran's Oil Bourse can't break the Buck

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Digital Journal

Posted Dec 8, 2006 by Sam Elfassy

The end of the petrodollar is the end of the dollar hegemony. And the end of the dollar hegemony is the end of the United States of America as a superpower, if not worst than that.

Full story: financialexpress.com

The Tehran Times, a central media outlet of the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, said that Iran has started substituting euros for dollars in oil sales. The minister of economy, Davoud Danesh-Ja’fari, announced that Iran wants to cut its dollar-based transactions to a minimum.
Bloomberg News reports: "Iran's oil export contracts for months have included a clause that allows the nation to seek payment in the euro and other currencies, creating a mechanism for a switch should Iran's policy change, according to traders who buy Iranian oil".

It was expected: Iran seems like it is defending itself from Iraq's diabolic fate generated by the same US which declares it to be next.

Accordingly, Iran, as an act of self defense, signals straight to Washington it can hurt harder.
And it can indeed: by shifting the most valuable commodity on earth nowadays, oil and gas, from a dollar tied commodity (hence “the petrodollar”, trading oil in US dollars) to a euro tied commodity (hence “the petroeuro”) it can collapse, surprisingly easily, the already fragile dollar hegemony. Due to the fact that others will follow.

Other economies around the world will join Iran out of their own substantial reasons. like Iran, they have their own motivation and necessity to get loose from United States’ violent grip. Venezuela, another important OPEC member is one, Russia another, and others. Add it to the just announced new Chinese oil wholesale market plus the upcoming Iranian oil bourse plus the efforts of major central banks to get rid of their dollars while the collapse of the petrodollar looming and the reason for Washington’s panic is getting much clearer.

Iran still leaves an open door for diplomacy, it is sending the message “I can do this already”, but on the other hand “I didn’t start operating the whole transition yet”. It looks as if the Iraq Study Group that showed up suddenly to recommend a diplomatic channel with Iran was formed only to enable Washington to climb down the tall tree it is on.

When asked for an official statement regarding Iran's energy trade policy, by US Bloomberg news, Hojatollah Ghanimifard, executive director for international affairs at National Iranian Oil Co., played the game of the official lines and replied that Iran’s policy of selling oil in US dollars ‘‘has not changed yet’’.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Inside Bay Area

Bloomberg News
Article Last Updated:11/26/2006 09:03:55 AM PST

FEW COUNTRIES would find fault with investors looking their way. That is, unless it's Japan and the buyers in question are central banks.

It has been 21 years since Japan bowed to its Western peers and substantially boosted the yen, and Tokyo still regrets it. Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Jen last year called it "one of the greatest policy mistakes Japan has made," and advised China to avoid a misstep like the one that helped cause Japan's boom and bust in the 1980s and'90s.

And so, it's not hard to understand why Japan prefers the yen as weak as markets will tolerate. Last week, it prompted the heads of the three U.S. automakers to press President George W. Bush to take action against the yen. Never mind that Detroit doesn't make cars that Asians want to buy; it still blames exchange rates for dwindling sales.

Japan's concern about a rising currency may be realized if central banks shift out of U.S. dollars into yen. Expecting the dollar to fall, central banks have already been diversifying into euros. Recently, they began loading up on yen, too.

Last week, there were indications the People's Bank of China, which has $1 trillion in currency reserves, has been doing just that. Asked by reporters whether the central bank had been purchasing yen, Deputy Governor Wu Xiaoling said: "We have."

Bet on yen

Like any smart central banker, Wu followed up the admission by saying: "We have been holding Japanese yen in our foreign exchange reserves for many years." To thicken the plot, central banks in New Zealand, Russia and Switzerland are increasing holdings of yen. And traders know China is diversifying its reserves, about two-thirds of which are held in dollars.

Buying yen is a bet the currency will rebound from a 20-year low, helped by rising interest rates and the longest expansion since World War II. Only time will tell if it's a good bet. Japan has been growing steadily for more than four years now and still the yen remains mysteriously weak.

Asia's most liquid currency should be surging. The Bank of Japan in July raised rates for the first time in six years and may move again soon; deflation is ending; Japan runs a trade surplus; and international investors are rediscovering its economy. And yet the yen is down 7.6 percent versus the euro this year and is little changed against the dollar.

One force capping the yen is investor loyalty to the dollar, even as massive U.S. current-account and budget deficits threaten to drive it lower. Another is doubt that Japan's long-awaited recovery will be as powerful as hoped.

Shaky dollar

Yet central bankers may be on to something in loading up on yen. Even if it isn't poised for strong gains, there's little on the horizon to push the yen lower. Investors in dollars or euros probably face greater downside risks. The euro is arguably overvalued, while the dollar's stability may have more to do with luck than economics.

With nowhere to go but up for the yen, those that get in early can avoid big dollar losses. Once word gets out that the largest dollar holders — such as Japan and China — are selling aggressively, the reserve currency could fall rapidly.

What's more, the yen may have an unexpected role to play in the oil-fueled rise of Middle Eastern economies.

There's much talk of how increasing amounts of so-called petrodollars are flowing to Asia. The term refers to dollars earned through the sale of petroleum.

Since the 1970s, the Middle East has accepted dollars in exchange for its oil.

Now, the desire to reduce U.S. hegemony, both economically and politically, has Iran working to set up a market in which countries can buy and sell oil in euros, rather than dollars.

Asia's promise

In many ways, it's a backlash against the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act, which gives the U.S. considerable latitude to collect information on individuals and businesses thought to have terrorist links. Yet it may also be a hunch that Asia's economic promise in this century will surpass the U.S.'s in the 21st century.

Rapid growth in Asia is increasing Middle East trade, particularly with booming, energy-thirsty economies such as China and India.

A look at the financial pages also shows how Arab states, companies and individuals are scooping up Asian real estate and investing in oil refineries and Islamic debt.

In June, for example, Dubai's DP World, rebuffed in its efforts to manage U.S. ports, announced a $500 million investment to build a terminal on the northeast Chinese harbor of Tianjin.

All this may seem a reach, yet the influence of petroleum-related liquidity will grow. While crude prices are about $56 a barrel, from a record high of $78.40, they are likely to rise anew.

Energy needs in China and India alone could boost prices for years to come. The proceeds from those sales may find their way back to Asian assets, including ones denominated in yen.

Central banks aren't known for being prescient traders.

Nor are they in the business of racking up big gains in markets. In the case of recent yen purchases, they may do both.

William Pesek is a Bloomberg News columnist.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Nation

November 3rd, 2006

By Scott Ritter
Former US-weapons inspector in Iraq

The distance between the northern suburbs of the Iranian capital of Tehran and the nuclear enrichment facility of Natanz is roughly 180 miles. What transpires on the ground between these two geographical points has seized the attention of the international community, and in particular the government of the United States, as the world wrestles with how best to respond to the issues surrounding Iran's decision to pursue indigenous enrichment of uranium in defiance of the United Nations Security Council's resolution demanding that all such activity cease.

I recently returned from a trip to Iran, where over the course of a week I made the journey from the northern suburbs of Tehran to the gates of the Natanz enrichment facility, and in doing so had my eyes opened. The Iran that I witnessed was far removed from the one caricatured in the US media. I left with the frustrating realization that, as had been the case with Iraq, America was stumbling toward a conflict, blinded by the prejudice and fear born of our collective ignorance.

The first thing that becomes apparent upon arrival in Tehran is that Iran is nothing like Iraq. I spent more than seven years in Iraq and know firsthand what a totalitarian dictatorship looks and acts like. Iran is not such a nation. Once I cleared passport control, I was thrust into a vibrant society that operates free of an oppressive security apparatus such as the one that dominated Iraqi daily life in the time of Saddam Hussein. This does not mean there is no internal security apparatus in Iran--far from it. A visit to the cable cars operating in the mountains north of Tehran puts you next to a major communications station of the ministry, where cellphone conversations can be monitored using advanced software procured from the United States. Iran has a functioning domestic security apparatus, but it most definitely is not an all-seeing, all-controlling police state, any more than the United States is in the post-9/11 era, when the FBI and the National Security Agency use similar software to selectively monitor the conversations of American citizens.

Iran is certainly not an open society that operates on a par with the West. I recently had the honor of spending some time with Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, and have heard her account of the intense repression meted out to those who challenge the political system. The theocrats who govern in Tehran have a history of shutting down media that are not obedient to the state, and the Iranian prison system is notorious for the jailing, beating and even execution of those who dare to protest publicly the rule of the mullahs.

In spite of these abuses of human rights and civil liberties, Iran is not a closed society. There is a ban on satellite television dishes, but many Iranians get their news from the BBC, CNN and other international television services simply by flouting the rules, which seem not to be too widely enforced. Some, like the Revolutionary Guards I became acquainted with, disguise their dish as a flower planter. The government has tried to censor the Internet, and has targeted online journalists and blocked thousands of websites. But the Internet is heavily used by Iranians, who continue to find ways to evade government controls. And cellphones are as ubiquitous as they are here in the West.

The point is that while the Iranian government often cracks down on organized public displays of dissent, the free flow of information that is vital to any dynamic society exists despite the efforts of the government to contain or control it. Ebadi is permitted to travel abroad, speaking and publishing words harshly critical of the Iranian theocracy. She has been harassed by the government but still operates freely, unlike her fellow Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Peace Prize in 1991 and is again under house arrest in Myanmar.

During my visit to the northern suburbs of Tehran, I was struck by the presence of wealth. Many ideologues in the United States, including those who currently occupy the corridors of power in Washington, conclude that this segment of society not only awaits US intervention to overthrow the regime but would actually cooperate with and facilitate any such effort. There is certainly a circle of Iranian secular intellectuals who chafe under Islamic law. Many of them are drawn from the ranks of the "old rich," those who made their fortunes during the time of the Shah and who yearn for the return of a Westernized, secular society. In conversation, these intellectuals often speculate about the possibility of US intervention, but more and more the hope of such liberation has been tempered by the ever-deepening disaster in Iraq. While most Iranians welcomed the elimination of Saddam, the horrors inflicted and unleashed by US military forces next door have left many of the old rich in Tehran with the realization that the dream of American intervention may turn into a nightmare. My trip convinced me that support for US intervention does not exist to any significant degree but rather resides solely in the minds of those in the West who have had their impressions of Iran shaped by pro-Shah expatriates who have been absent from the country for more than a quarter-century.

Iran today is a fully functioning capitalist society, and in addition to the old rich, there is a larger population of wealthy Iranians who made their fortunes after the Islamic revolution and who owe their ability to sustain their wealth to the continued governance of the Islamic Republic. Likewise, those in the West who believe that the youth of Iran (more than two-thirds of the population today is under 30) share the same aspirations as the Western-oriented moneyed class will be disappointed. Those under 30 have no memory of the Iran that existed pre-theocracy and seem more willing to support a moderating change from within than a drastic change imposed from without.

The vast majority of Tehran's citizens are working- and lower middle class. These people reside in the urban sprawl of southern Tehran, where out-of-control population growth strains the resources of municipal government and the Islamic Republic as a whole. The province of Tehran has expanded from 6.8 million people a decade ago to a current official count of 10.5 million; the actual population may be closer to 12 million, with more arriving every day. Unemployment is rampant (the official figure for the country is 12.4 percent, but it's probably closer to 20 percent), and there is a growing level of dissatisfaction that has manifested itself politically in recent years.

The political center of Iran used to rest in northern Tehran. However, the 2005 presidential election saw a dramatic shift to the southern neighborhoods, whose voters helped elect one of their own, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Western media have for the most part depicted his victory as evidence of a resurgent religious fundamentalism, but anyone who walks the streets of southern Tehran (where most Western journalists are loath to wander) and visits the workshops and markets will find a much more nuanced reality. In the motorcycle repair shop I walked into I found the owner and customers evenly divided between Ahmadinejad and his principal rival, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani actually won the most votes in the first round, but in the runoff Ahmadinejad shocked everyone by bringing over to his conservative platform the supporters of the reformist candidates. The key factor in his stunning victory was not religious fundamentalism but widespread disillusionment over the state of the economy, coupled with charges of nepotism and corruption surrounding Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejad was, more than anything, a reform candidate. This is what swept him into office, and it is on this issue that he continues to be judged today, with decidedly mixed results, by the people of Iran.

For all the attention the Western media give to Ahmadinejad's foreign policy pronouncements, the reality is that his effective influence is limited to domestic issues. The citizens of Tehran I spoke with, from every walk of life, understood this and were genuinely perplexed as to why we in the West treat Ahmadinejad as if he were a genuine head of state. "The man has no real power," a former Revolutionary Guard member told me. "The true power in Iran resides with the Supreme Leader." The real authority is indeed the Ayatollah Sayeed Ali Khamenei, successor to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

According to the Iranian Constitution, the Supreme Leader has absolute authority over all matters pertaining to national security, including the armed forces, the police and the Revolutionary Guard. Only the Supreme Leader can declare war. In this regard, all aspects of Iran's nuclear program are controlled by Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad has no bearing on the issue. Curiously, while the Western media have replayed Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statements repeatedly, very little attention has been paid to the Supreme Leader's pronouncement--in the form of a fatwa, or religious edict--that Iran rejects outright the acquisition of nuclear weapons, or to the efforts made by the Supreme Leader in 2003 to reach an accommodation with the United States that offered peace with Israel. While Ahmadinejad plays to the Iranian street with his inflammatory rhetoric, the true authority in Iran has been attempting to navigate a path of moderation.

The Supreme Leader's powers are impressive, but they are not absolute. Iran has a system of checks and balances that is played out through two primary bodies: the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. Until recently the Guardian Council had absolute veto power over parliamentary legislation and was unchecked in the exercise of its oversight responsibilities. However, in 1997 Khamenei beefed up the role and responsibility of the Expediency Council, and it was further strengthened last year; now the decisions of the Guardian Council, if challenged by the Iranian Parliament, can be overturned by the Expediency Council. The Guardian Council is still a dauntingly authoritative body, especially when one considers that the Supreme Leader has the power to appoint half its members (and all of the Expediency Council's). Iran, after all, remains an Islamic republic, which means that the political pulse is generated not in Tehran but some fifty-five miles to the south, in the holy city of Qom.

It is in Qom where many of the religious figures on the two councils reside. They teach at religious schools and have developed their own followings, comprising religious, civil and military officials who have an enormous effect on day-to-day policy. Qom is a very conservative city, and the religious figures who study there reflect this. However, this conservatism does not directly translate into the embrace of strict religious fundamentalism. There is a growing recognition among the ayatollahs who serve on the councils of the need to seek compromise on matters of religion not only to dilute internal dissent but also to better tend to the needs of the country. The greatest reform pressure on these figures comes not from religious students but rather from the traditional watchdog of the Islamic Republic, the Revolutionary Guard.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains very much an enigmatic entity to most Western observers. Born from the tumult of the revolution that swept the Shah from power in 1979, the Revolutionary Guard was the primary defender of the Islamic Republic during its infancy, serving as the country's first line of defense after the 1980 Iraqi invasion and against anti-regime forces, in particular the guerrillas of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen (MEK). The Revolutionary Guard also served as defender of the Shiite faith abroad, playing a pivotal role in the formation of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon after the 1982 Israeli invasion.

Many of the actions of the guard have been cited by the United States as evidence that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The guard members I spoke with reject this characterization. "We did some pretty terrible things in our early years, but we were fighting for our national survival," one veteran member told me. "The MEK was waging a war in our cities, ambushing our forces, assassinating our politicians and killing our citizens with car bombs. We had to crush them, either in Iran or out. But if we kill an MEK operative in France or Germany, we become terrorists. If America kills an Al Qaeda operative in another country, you are counterterrorists. This makes no sense. We have never targeted or attacked Americans or American interests. We condemned the 9/11 attacks as a crime against Islam and a crime against humanity. And yet we are reviled as terrorists, or even worse, co-conspirators with Al Qaeda. Doesn't America understand that we oppose Al Qaeda and all it stands for? Do you not know that the teachings of Sunni Wahhabism are anathema to the teachings of the Shia faith?"

In our haste to lash out at those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, we forget that Iran not only condemned the attacks, as did its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, but that it nearly fought a war against Afghanistan's Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies in the late 1990s. There is no greater potential ally in the struggle against Sunni extremism than Shiite Iran, a point made over and over by everyone I talked to, especially those affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. As one veteran told me, "Iraq is our neighbor, and of course we have a vested interest in its stability. We fought an eight-year war with Iraq, so we understand the realities of that country. We are very glad the United States got rid of Saddam. But now what America is doing only makes the region more insecure. We could help America in Iraq if only they would let us."

Moving south from Qom, along modern highways interspersed with rest stops that would meet with the approval of any traveler on the New York State Thruway, I was struck by the long lines of cars at gas stations. For all its oil wealth, Iran has an energy crisis. With its economy focused on the cash business of oil export, little attention has been paid to the needs of the domestic consumer. Iran is woefully lacking in domestic refining capacity, so much so that it spends billions every year importing gasoline at world market prices, which it then discounts so that the Iranian consumer pays only some 40 cents a gallon. This makes no economic sense, but Iran's oil is already fully leveraged in the export market. With reserves shrinking and new discoveries waning, Iran faces a serious energy crisis in the coming decades unless alternative sources are developed.

Some 180 miles south of Tehran lies the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Tucked away on the side of the road, surrounded by a makeshift berm and numerous antiaircraft artillery emplacements, the facility has the outward appearance of something dark and ominous. But the secrets concerning what lies within are well-known to the world as a result of inspections carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency. What the inspectors say is crystal clear: There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the enrichment program is plagued with technical problems that prevent any rapid progress. There is no imminent nuclear weapons threat from Iran, which hasn't mastered the technologies and methodologies of enrichment needed to sustain a nuclear energy program, let alone a nuclear weapons effort.

The Bush Administration speaks of the need to move quickly on the issue of Iran's nuclear ambition and to roll back the forces of terror represented by the Islamic Republic. The repeated and explicit demand of the Administration is for regime change, as evidenced in the March 2006 "National Security Strategy of the United States," where Iran is named repeatedly as the number-one threat to the United States. The alleged Iranian threat espoused by Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility. The path that the United States is currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will lead to war. (Indeed, there are numerous unconfirmed reports that the United States has already begun covert military operations inside Iran, including overflights by pilotless drones and recruitment and training of MEK, Kurdish and Azeri guerrillas.) Such a course of action would make even the historic blunder of the Iraq invasion pale by comparison. When we talk of war, we must never forget that we are talking about the lives of the men and women who serve us in the armed forces. We have a duty and responsibility to insure that all options short of war are exhausted before any decision to enter into conflict is made. On the issue of Iran, the United States hasn't even come close to exhausting the available options.

The solution to this problem is clear. The most logical course would be to put Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a flight to Tehran, where she could negotiate directly with the principal players on the Iranian side, including Supreme Leader Khamenei. If Administration officials actually engaged with the Iranians, they would have an eye-opening experience. Of course, Rice would need to come with a revamped US policy, one that rejects regime change, provides security guarantees for Iran as it is currently governed and would be willing to recognize Iran's legitimate right to enrich uranium under Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (although under stringent UN inspections, and perhaps limited to the operation of a single 164-centrifuge cascade).

Rice would undoubtedly be surprised at the degree of moderation (and pro-American sentiment) that exists in Iran today. She might also be shocked to find out that the Iranians are more than ready to sit down with the United States and work out a program for stability in Iraq, as well as a reduction of tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. In addition to significantly reducing the risk of a disastrous conflict, such a visit would do more to encourage moderation and peace in the region than any amount of saber-rattling could ever hope to accomplish. And it would do more to help America prevail in the so-called Global War on Terror than any war plan the Pentagon could assemble. In the end, that is what defines good policy--something sadly lacking in Washington today.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Yahoo, AP Diplomatic Writer

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
September 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Wednesday it was willing to defer seeking U.N. sanctions against
Iran for a few weeks if there is a chance for a diplomatic resolution of a long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear programs.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned senior European diplomat Javier Solana on Wednesday "and we do fully support his efforts" to hold talks with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The United States had demanded Iran suspend its uranium processing as a precondition to negotiations. McCormack said whether Iran was agreeable to a temporary suspension would not be known until Solana met with Larijani.

"Their disposition to this point has not been to give clear answers" and it may require several meetings to find out, McCormack said.

And yet, the spokesman said, "There may be an opportunity here, there may be a little opening if we just give the Iranians a little time and space."

"Perhaps they will come through with a positive answer," he said.

Senior administration officials warned Iran after it did not meet an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment that the United States would seek sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council, possibly by the end of September.

But McCormack said Wednesday that Solana saw an "opportunity" in his meeting with Larijani "if we give the Iranians a little time and space."

"Our response was, 'absolutely, if it's a matter of a few days, a few weeks here to see if there is a possibility of keeping open a negotiated diplomatic solution,'" McCormack said.

"We want to give that every opportunity to succeed," he said.

The administration's sanctions strategy is to impose a series of increasingly potent penalties against Iran, beginning with curbs on technology that could be used in military programs.

The United States and the European Union contend Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran disputes the accusation and says it is merely seeking more energy with its nuclear work.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Fantastic explantion of the history of oil, oil's influence in war, Peak Oil and US Dollar currency hegemony. All done with humor, amusing analogies and in lay person's terms.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Mehrnews.com

September 15, 2006

TEHRAN, Sept. 15 (MNA) -- Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said here on Friday that all preparatory requirements were arranged for launching the oil stock market in the country.

Speaking to the reporters at the Mehrabad International Airport upon arriving in Tehran from an OPEC conference in Vienna, Vaziri-Hamaneh said that all un-subsidized oil products can be offered in this stock market.

He also rejected rumors about the preparation of a plan to gradually increase the gasoline price, but added that the cabinet had submitted a bill to the Majlis for importing gasoline.

“If the bill is ratified, the present condition will continue and rationing will be put into practice later.”

Hamaneh further noted that the plan to issue fuel debit cards will be finalized within three months.

As for the decisions made during that OPEC conference, the minister said that the member countries were quite concerned for the downward trend of oil price, and so decided to maintain the present oil production ceiling.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Vaziri-Hamaneh referred to the development of the Azadegan oilfield and said that an agreement has been inked with the Japanese, granting to them a 15-day opening to meet their commitments.

He explained “the Total Company anyway stresses cooperating with the Japanese and is interested in starting the conduction of project after the cooperation contract is finalized with the Japanese contractor.”

Answering a question about the development of the Arash oilfield, Iranian oil minister said that an Iranian delegation will head for Kuwait within 7 to10 days, adding that however, Iran and Kuwait are determined to jointly develop their joint oilfield.

Hamaneh said that a two-month opening has been also granted to the Chinese contractor to develop Yadavaran oilfield.

Elaborating on the development process of the Peace Pipeline, he said the consultant party is supposed to estimate and submit the gas price as soon as possible so that Iran can negotiate it with the Indian and Pakistani ministers.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Australian
From correspondents in Washington
September 09, 2006

The US Treasury Department announced overnight that it had blacklisted one of Iran's largest banks, Bank Saderat, from having any links with US-owned banks.

The move effectively cuts Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat off from conducting any business linked to the US financial system.

The Treasury Department said it blacklisted Saderat because of its "support for terrorism."

"Bank Saderat facilitates Iran's transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations each year," said Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

"We will no longer allow a bank like Saderat to do business in the American financial system, even indirectly," Mr Levey said.

According to the US Treasury, the bank is one of Iran's largest with some 3400 branch offices.

The Treasury also said the bank had transferred funds to other "terrorist organizations" including Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 02:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Pioneer [India]
By Sandhya Jain

If Iranian President Ahmadinejad is serious about opening a Euro-based oil bourse in Tehran to undermine the US dollar, now is the time to strike. Strategic experts believe that internationally, the mega strategic energy deals are slipping away from corporate America, whose strong arm tactics are alienating growing nationalist sentiment across the world.

Washington's use of the September 2001 New York terror strike to cynically assume a commanding position in oil and gas rich Central Asia has startled the international community, especially after the unwarranted invasion of Iraq and takeover of its economy by cronies of the White House. This has forced a major rethink in world capitals, and resource-rich regimes in the Gulf and Central Asia are responding to Russia and China, who are cooperating to combat America's monopolistic ambitions.

Pakistan is Washington's non-NATO ally in the war against terror, but has turned to China for economic development, as evident in troubled Balochistan. It is keen on an energy deal with Iran, bete noire of Uncle Sam, but the tripartite energy deal with India cannot take off due to Pakistan's status as the epicentre of jihadi terrorism. As a rising Asian economy, India is also engaging with the Central Asian Republics for better energy security, though its anxiety for American goodwill has upset Iran and caused a stalemate over the price of LNG.

Saudi Arabia, however, is moving out of the American orbit by sewing up energy deals with China and India, though Washington has compensated itself with the oilfields of Libya. Yet the unmistakable geo-political trend among oil and gas producing nations of the Gulf, Latin America, Africa and Central Asia is to avoid US oil companies in favour of nations that do not interfere in their internal affairs. America's high comfort levels with dictatorial regimes on one hand, and promotion of puppet democracies on the other, as per its corporate convenience, has diminished its value as a desirable economic and strategic global partner.

Central Asia is alert after the string of 'coloured' revolutions. America currently retains bases in Kyrgyzthan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But Uzbekistan asked it to vacate the crucial Karshi-Khanabad (K2) base after the failed Andijan riots. President Islam Karimov was warned by ousted Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze against American financier George Soros and West-funded NGOs; he promptly expelled the Open Society Institute, stifled other NGOs, and courted Russian President Putin. A gas deal with Russia's Gazprom is expected to affect America's hydrocarbon pipeline over Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Karimov has invited India to share an energy partnership along with Russia and China, a move that makes profound geo-political sense.

Meanwhile, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is pressing America to wind up its bases in Central Asia, especially as heightened tensions with Iran raise fears of another regional misadventure. Kazakhstan, which has enormous hydrocarbon resources, is also upset with President Bush, and even allies like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan favour a security relationship with Russia. Tajikistan made the Russian military base there permanent after President Putin's visit in October 2004, while Russia has a base at Kant in Kyrgyzstan.

China is very proactive in the region. There is a thousand kilometre pipeline from Kazakhstan's central Karaganda region to Xinjiang, part of an ambitious three thousand kilometre link to the Caspian Sea. China has also invested heavily in Russia's energy sector, especially Siberia's coal and oil. It is active in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Experts opine that Russia is leading the attempt to marginalise Western multinational oil companies. The move strikes a chord because the White House is dominated by a cartel of the oil and gas industry and some banker-financiers, and the oil-rich nations of Central Asia, the Gulf and Latin America prefer joint ventures with State enterprises rather than these rapacious multinationals. Thus, a very basic economic nationalism drives their tilt towards Russia and China. The West, used to more than a century of de facto imperialism in the oil and gas sector, finds itself on a sticky wicket.

The new oil-and-gas producer States and the key consumer Asian economies (China, India) are joining hands to forge State-to-State joint ventures and arrive at strategic energy security. Analysts say this could eventually diminish the role and status of OPEC in future. Russian leaders had cleverly positioned the Russian Federation to take advantage of global energy trends, and is now emerging as natural leader of the world's key producing and consuming powers.

Washington facilitated this process by its unacceptable oil greed in Iraq. In a path-breaking work, "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time," Antonia Juhasz exposes the US corporate invasion of Iraq. So far, 150 US corporations have received a staggering $50 billion worth of contracts for the failed reconstruction of Iraq, even as a new oil law has opened the oil sector to private foreign corporate investment.

Copyright © 2006 Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle

Under the Geneva Convention, it is completely illegal for an occupying power to change the laws or political structure of the occupied country. Yet the United Nations and the international community have been idle bystanders as the Bush Administration has changed all basic economic and political laws, while totally failing in the primary task of providing for the security and basic needs of the Iraqi people. Thus, as many as 30 oil contracts signed by President Saddam Hussein with oil companies from all around the world, except the US, were simply cancelled. Iraq oil is now being guzzled by Chevron, Exxon and Marathon. And when you consider that some geologists believe that Iraq's oil reserves are larger or at par with those of Saudi Arabia, you can envisage a very slow American pullout from the region. No wonder the Central Asian nations with American military bases are no longer keen to play host to Uncle Sam.

America's obduracy has reinforced the global preference for State-to-State long-term agreements and contracts which serve the energy-security interests of nations, rather than private corporate entities. Russia's domination of oil and gas flowing to the West has helped it re-emerge as a global power in concert with its strategic partners. And, surprising as it may seem, Washington lacks the global leverage to refashion events in its favour.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: www.informationclearinghouse.info

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

I. Economics of Empires

01/19/06 "Gold Eagle" -- -- A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.

Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace?

Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests.

It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange - this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

Coup d'état - this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations - this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d'etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.

Joint U.N. War Resolution - this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.

Unilateral Nuclear Strike - this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.

Unilateral Total War - this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions.

Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis-between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its "classical medicine" by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard's America's Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world-that barbarous relic called gold.

About the Author: Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)