Main

October 07, 2009

The demise of the dollar

Source: The Independent

In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading

By Robert Fisk

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.

The decline of American economic power linked to the current global recession was implicitly acknowledged by the World Bank president Robert Zoellick. "One of the legacies of this crisis may be a recognition of changed economic power relations," he said in Istanbul ahead of meetings this week of the IMF and World Bank. But it is China's extraordinary new financial power – along with past anger among oil-producing and oil-consuming nations at America's power to interfere in the international financial system – which has prompted the latest discussions involving the Gulf states.

Brazil has shown interest in collaborating in non-dollar oil payments, along with India. Indeed, China appears to be the most enthusiastic of all the financial powers involved, not least because of its enormous trade with the Middle East.

China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources. China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.

Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls. In a clear sign of China's growing financial muscle, the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, yesterday pleaded with Beijing to let the yuan appreciate against a sliding dollar and, by extension, loosen China's reliance on US monetary policy, to help rebalance the world economy and ease upward pressure on the euro.

Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements – the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system – America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.

The Chinese believe, for example, that the Americans persuaded Britain to stay out of the euro in order to prevent an earlier move away from the dollar. But Chinese banking sources say their discussions have gone too far to be blocked now. "The Russians will eventually bring in the rouble to the basket of currencies," a prominent Hong Kong broker told The Independent. "The Brits are stuck in the middle and will come into the euro. They have no choice because they won't be able to use the US dollar."

Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.

The US discussed the trend briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh; the Chinese Central Bank governor and other officials have been worrying aloud about the dollar for years. Their problem is that much of their national wealth is tied up in dollar assets.

"These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."

Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. Bankers remember, of course, what happened to the last Middle East oil producer to sell its oil in euros rather than dollars. A few months after Saddam Hussein trumpeted his decision, the Americans and British invaded Iraq.

October 26, 2007

US imposes unilateral sanctions on Iran: One step closer to war

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.

October 10, 2007

Does OPEC Mull Rejecting Federal Reserve Dollars?

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.

October 03, 2007

Hunt Denies His Political Ties Aided Kurdish Pact

Source: WSJ Online

By BOB DAVIS
October 3, 2007; Page A3

DALLAS -- Hunt Oil Co. Chief Executive Ray Hunt said his ties to the Bush family and the Republican Party didn't help his company cut a deal last month to explore for oil in Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region.

The agreement, which gives the closely held Dallas company access to a largely unexplored part of oil-rich Iraq, has been criticized by the Bush administration and Iraqi officials as undermining efforts to strengthen the war-torn country's central government. Some critics also suggested Mr. Hunt was cashing in on his ties to President Bush, while others claimed he was turning his back on the president.

• Outside Politics: Hunt Oil CEO Ray Hunt said his ties to the Bush family and Republican party didn't help it strike a deal with officials in Iraq's Kurdish region.
• Countering Criticism: The State Department says it had warned Hunt against a deal, but Mr. Hunt said his company didn't ask for advice and acts independently.
• Unknown Potential: Iraq is oil-rich, but much of the war-torn country is unexplored and the biggest known reserves are outside Kurdish territory.

In an interview, the 64-year-old Mr. Hunt says that, contrary to the State Department's assertion, the company received no U.S. government advice before striking a deal. "The State Department must have been misinformed," he said. "We did not consult with anyone in the [U.S. government] prior to signing our agreement."

Mr. Hunt, a longtime friend of the Bush family, gave $75,000 to Republican Party fund-raising committees in the past two years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But he said his political ties didn't play a role; the company saw an opening in Kurdistan and jumped on it. "It's another example where we're able to move quickly when opportunity presents itself," said Mr. Hunt, who says Kurdish oil executives turned to Hunt because of its oil-development record in Yemen.

Mr. Hunt added: "The fact is, as a matter of policy, we never have and never will go to the government of the U.S. and ask the government's advice on anything we do from a business point of view."

The State Department says it warned Hunt Oil against signing a contract that it viewed as "legally uncertain." In a news conference late last month, Mr. Bush said he was "concerned" the arrangement would "undermine" negotiations for a national oil law.

The Hunt Oil deal has been touted by Kurdish officials, who want to bolster their claim to autonomy in oil-related issues and worry that energy resources are more thoroughly mapped in Shiite-dominated southern Iraq. But the Hunt contract has angered the Baghdad central government, which worries about a breakup of the state.

Hunt Oil is much smaller than super majors such as Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. But it has a reputation in the U.S. oil patch as a risk taker. As a closely held company, it feels it can move faster than larger rivals. Mr. Hunt often refers to his firm as a "commando" operation, wooing customers with its derring-do.

Under terms of the Kurdistan contract, Hunt Oil plans to start seismic testing in the next few weeks and to drill its first well sometime next year. But Mr. Hunt emphasized that the contract is for exploration only, not for production, which could take an additional few years to begin -- if the company manages to find oil.

The Kurdish regional government yesterday said it had signed a variety of additional oil deals, which could reduce the political heat on Hunt. They include exploration agreements with two midsize oil companies, Heritage Oil Corp., of Canada, and Perenco SA, of France, and separate agreements to build two oil refineries.

Qubad Talabani, the Kurdish government's representative in the U.S., credited Hunt with boosting the visibility of Kurdistan. "When a name as established as Hunt comes in, it raised eyebrows in the oil-and-gas community," he said.

Iraq is estimated to hold some 115 billion barrels of reserves, making it the third-largest holder after Saudi Arabia and Iran. But after decades of war, the country is relatively unexplored.

Friendly and reserved, Mr. Hunt lacks the family's flamboyance. His father, H.L. Hunt, was a wildcatter who fathered 15 children by three women and used poker winnings for early capital, while two of Ray Hunt's half-brothers tried to corner the world's silver market.

WSJ_HuntGraphic.gif

But Ray Hunt shares his family's thirst for business risk and penchant for secrecy. The company won't release its revenue or even the number of Hunt employees.

Mr. Hunt has expanded its business overseas, including the North Sea and Yemen. Hunt Oil is also a big investor in a natural-gas project in Peru's Amazon and is now building a liquefied-natural-gas export facility in Peru.

Hunt is used to politically precarious situations. It struck oil in northern Yemen in the early 1980s and built the operation during periodic civil wars. Yemen expropriated a big part of its holdings in 2005, which Hunt is contesting in international arbitration, though it still has interests elsewhere in the country.

Its record in Yemen helped get it a leg up in Kurdistan, said Mr. Talabani, the Kurdish official. Over the years, Hunt has also kept up contacts with Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish oil minister.

"We consider ourselves to be loyal American citizens as individuals and as a company," Mr. Hunt said. His company won't deal with countries that are being sanctioned by the U.S., like Cuba or Iran, or look for legal loopholes that would give it a leg up there, he said.

--Chip Cummins and Neil King Jr. contributed to this article.

September 13, 2007

Iran foreign exchange reserves jump on high oil prices

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.

September 07, 2007

Ruble Rumble

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).

August 18, 2007

Iran's President to Capitalize on Oil Wealth

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.

How the plans for an oil bourse finally pan out is going to be crucial for developments at home in Iran, and the country's leaders' realization that stressing out the world at large over nuclear capability might turn out to have consequences for Iran's own prosperity. Iran's plans are leading the international drive to overhaul dollar denomination in global oil trading, currently accounting for around 65 percent of all oil trade, and this is a strong card. Iranian oil traders have been suggesting for a while now that clients start paying in euros, and according to the Iranians they are finding willing ears. They say that over half their business is now conducted in euros.

Some international trading houses quoted by the International Herald Tribune a few months ago, confirmed that they were being encouraged by officials in Iran's oil industry to pay in currencies other than the dollar, but that they had yet to receive an official request from the authorities. "We are looking at it so that we can switch the currencies any time, but we have not gotten any official requests from them," the Nippon Oil chairman, Fumiaki Watari, was quoted as saying. The only company to confirm the news officially was a Chinese state-owned corporation. That was big news because it imports 12 percent of China's foreign imported oil. China is also supporting Iran's nuclear plans and has threatened to use its veto in the United Nations. The United States has a reason to be somewhat worried.

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

August 15, 2007

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

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.

August 12, 2007

Petrodollars to flow into US Treasuries despite Iran

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.

August 05, 2007

Japan Drops Dollar to Buy Iran’s Oil

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.”

July 31, 2007

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles

Source: Rolling Stone

From Issue 1032

JEFF GOODELL
Posted Jul 24, 2007 1:36 PM

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

Three factors are driving the ethanol hype. The first is panic: Many energy experts believe that the world's oil supplies have already peaked or will peak within the next decade. The second is election-year politics. With the first vote to be held in Iowa, the largest corn-producing state in the nation, former skeptics like Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain now pay tribute to the wonders of ethanol. Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural backers in Illinois by co-authoring legislation to raise production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030. A few weeks later, rival Democrat John Edwards, who is staking his campaign on a victory in the Iowa caucus, upped the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025.

The third factor stoking the ethanol frenzy is the war in Iraq, which has made energy independence a universal political slogan. Unlike coal, another heavily subsidized energy source, ethanol has the added political benefit of elevating the American farmer to national hero. As former CIA director James Woolsey, an outspoken ethanol evangelist, puts it, "American farmers, by making the commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." If you love America, how can you not love ethanol?

Ethanol is nothing more than 180-proof grain alcohol. To avoid the prospect of drunks sucking on gas pumps, fuel ethanol is "denatured" with chemical additives (if you drink it, you'll end up dead or, at best, in the hospital). It can be distilled from a variety of plants, including sugar cane and switch- grass. Most vehicles can't run on pure ethanol, but E85, a mix of eighty-five percent ethanol and fifteen percent gasoline, requires only slight engine modifications.

But as a gasoline substitute, ethanol has big problems: Its energy density is one-third less than gasoline, which means you have to burn more of it to get the same amount of power. It also has a nasty tendency to absorb water, so it can't be transported in existing pipelines and must be distributed by truck or rail, which is tremendously inefficient.

Nor is all ethanol created equal. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane has an energy balance of 8-to-1 -- that is, when you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine sugar cane into ethanol, the energy output is eight times higher than the energy inputs. That's a better deal than gasoline, which has an energy balance of 5-to-1. In contrast, the energy balance of corn ethanol is only 1.3-to-1 - making it practically worthless as an energy source. "Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas," says Robert Rapier, an oil-industry engineer who runs the R-Squared Energy Blog.

The ethanol boondoggle is largely a tribute to the political muscle of a single company: agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. In the 1970s, looking for new ways to profit from corn, ADM began pushing ethanol as a fuel additive. By the early 1980s, ADM was producing 175 million gallons of ethanol a year. The company's then-chairman, Dwayne Andreas, struck up a close relationship with Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, a.k.a. "Senator Ethanol." During the 1992 election, ADM gave $1 million to Dole and his friends in the GOP (compared with $455,000 to the Democrats). In return, Dole helped the company secure billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks. In 1995, the conservative Cato Institute, estimating that nearly half of ADM's profits came from products either subsidized or protected by the federal government, called the company "the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history."

Today, ADM is the leading producer of ethanol, supplying more than 1 billion gallons of the fuel additive last year. Ethanol is propped up by more than 200 tax breaks and subsidies worth at least $5.5 billion a year. And ADM continues to give back: Since 2000, the company has contributed $3.7 million to state and federal politicians.

The Iraq War has also been a boon for ADM and other ethanol producers. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was pushed by Corn Belt politicians, mandated the consumption of 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012. After Democrats took over Congress last year, they too vowed to "do something" about America's addiction to foreign oil. By the time Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, proposed new energy legislation this spring, the only real question was how big the ethanol mandate would be. According to one lobbyist, 36 billion gallons became "the Goldilocks number -- not too big to be impractical, not too small to satisfy corn growers."

Under the Senate bill, only 15 billion gallons of ethanol will come from corn, in part because even corn growers admit that turning more grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies. The remaining 21 billion gallons will have to come from advanced biofuels, most of which are currently brewed only in small-scale lab experiments. "It's like trying to solve a traffic problem by mandating hovercraft," says Dave Juday, an independent commodities consultant. "Except we don't have hovercraft."

The most seductive myth about ethanol is that it will free us from our dependence on foreign oil. But even if ethanol producers manage to hit the mandate of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace a paltry 1.5 million barrels of oil per day -- only seven percent of current oil needs. Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make ethanol, the fuel would replace only twelve percent of current gasoline use.

Another misconception is that ethanol is green. In fact, corn production depends on huge amounts of fossil fuel -- not just the diesel needed to plow fields and transport crops, but also the vast quantities of natural gas used to produce fertilizers. Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields also silts up the Mississippi River and creates a vast dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico every summer. What's more, when corn ethanol is burned in vehicles, it is as dirty as conventional gasoline and does little to solve global warming: E85 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a modest fifteen percent at best, while fueling the destruction of tropical forests.

But the biggest problem with ethanol is that it steals vast swaths of land that might be better used for growing food. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs titled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," University of Minnesota economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out that filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn -- roughly enough calories to feed one person for a year.

Thanks in large part to the ethanol craze, the price of beef, poultry and pork in the United States rose more than three percent during the first five months of this year. In some parts of the country, hog farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix, french fries and chocolate bars. And since America provides two-thirds of all global corn exports, the impact is being felt around the world. In Mexico, tortilla prices have jumped sixty percent, leading to food riots. In Europe, butter prices have spiked forty percent, and pork prices in China are up twenty percent. By 2025, according to Runge and Senauer, rising food prices caused by the demand for ethanol and other biofuels could cause as many as 600 million more people to go hungry worldwide.

Despite the serious drawbacks of ethanol, some technological visionaries believe that the fuel can be done right. "Corn ethanol is just a platform, the first step in a much larger transition we are undergoing from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy," says Vinod Khosla, a pioneering venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. Next-generation corn- ethanol plants, he argues, will be much more efficient and environmentally friendly. He points to a company called E3 BioFuels that just opened an ethanol plant in Mead, Nebraska. The facility runs largely on biogas made from cow manure, and feeds leftover grain back to the cows, making it a "closed-loop system" -- one that requires very few fossil fuels to create ethanol.

Khosla is even higher on the prospects for cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel that can be made from almost any plant matter, including wood waste and perennial grasses like miscanthus and switchgrass. Like other high-tech ethanol evangelists, Khosla imagines a future in which such so-called "energy crops" are fed into giant refineries that use genetically engineered enzymes to break down the cellulose in plants and create fuel for a fraction of the cost of today's gasoline. Among other virtues, cellulosic ethanol would not cut into the global food supply (nobody eats miscanthus or switchgrass), and it could significantly cut global-warming pollution. Even more important, it could provide a gateway to a much larger biotech revolution, including synthetic microbes that could one day be engineered to gobble up carbon dioxide or other pollutants.

Unfortunately, no commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants exist today. In one venture backed by Khosla, a $225 million plant in central Georgia is currently being built to make ethanol out of wood chips. Mitch Mandich, a former Apple Computer executive who is now the CEO of the operation, calls it "the beginning of a real transformation in the way we think about energy in America."

Maybe. But oil-industry engineer Robert Rapier, who has spent years studying cellulosic ethanol, says that the difference between ethanol from corn and ethanol from cellulose is "like the difference between traveling to the moon and traveling to Mars." And even if the engineering hurdles can be overcome, there's still the problem of land use: According to Rapier, replacing fifty percent of our current gasoline consumption with cellulosic ethanol would consume thirteen percent of the land in the United States - about seven times the land currently utilized for corn production.

Increasing the production of cellulosic ethanol will also require solving huge logistical problems, including delivering vast quantities of feedstock to production plants. According to one plant manager in the Midwest, fueling an ethanol plant with switchgrass would require delivering a semi-truckload of the grass every six minutes, twenty-four hours a day. Finally, there is the challenge of wrestling the future away from Big Corn. "It's pretty clear to me that the corn guys will use all their lobbying muscle and political power to stall, thwart and sidetrack this revolution," says economist C. Ford Runge.

In the end, the ethanol boom is another manifestation of America's blind faith that technology will solve all our problems. Thirty years ago, nuclear power was the answer. Then it was hydrogen. Biofuels may work out better, especially if mandates are coupled with tough caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, biofuels are, at best, a huge gamble. They may help cushion the fall when cheap oil vanishes, but if we rely on ethanol to save the day, we could soon find ourselves forced to make a choice between feeding our SUVs and feeding children in the Third World. And we all know how that decision will go.

July 13, 2007

Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately (Update1)

Source: Bloomberg

By Megumi Yamanaka

July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it's cutting holdings of the U.S. dollar.

Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.

The yen rose on expectations for an increase in demand for the currency to buy shipments from Iran, Japan's third-largest oil supplier. Central bankers in Venezuela, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates have said they will invest less of their reserves in dollar assets because of the weakening currency, while the United Nations Security Council is preparing for another round of sanctions against Iran because of the nation's nuclear research.

``What else can Japan do but to accept the request, once the oil producer sent its wish?'' said Hirofumi Kawachi, an analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities Co. in Tokyo. ``The tensions between the U.S. and Iran are escalating, and it's Iran's measure to hedge risk.''

A spokesman for Iran's oil ministry in Tehran said he could neither confirm nor deny that the letter had been sent. Most Japanese oil refiners have until now used U.S. dollars to pay Iran for oil, said the spokesman, who declined to be identified by name because of government policy.

Yen Advances

The yen advanced to 122.15 per dollar at 10:34 a.m. in New York, from 122.42 late yesterday.

The Islamic republic, holder of the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, has refused to halt uranium enrichment that it says is for use in nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The U.S. says Iran seeks instead to develop an atomic bomb. Enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear fuel or build nuclear weapons.

The government in Tehran has failed to suspend its nuclear activities after the imposition of two sets of United Nations- sponsored sanctions since December.

Iran isn't alone in wanting to drop the dollar for pricing oil. Russia has been examining plans to price the Urals oil export blend in rubles to curb currency risks. The nation plans to open the Energy Stock Exchange in St. Petersburg in the first half of next year to trade oil in rubles, UBS AG reported June 14.

`New Payment Mechanism'

Iran asked the refiners to use the yen exchange rate quoted at the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ on the date oil cargoes are loaded. The use of yen-based letters of credit for oil ``has finally been approved'' by the Iranian central bank and the NIOC, according to the letter, titled ``New payment mechanism for Iranian Crude Oil Cargoes.''

Payments from Japanese refiners to Iran rose 12 percent last year to 1.24 trillion yen ($10.1 billion), according to the finance ministry in Tokyo. Japan imported 1.59 million kiloliters of Iranian crude oil in May, the least since June 2006, according to government data.

Iran is cutting its U.S. dollar reserves to less than 20 percent of total foreign currency holdings, and will buy more euros and yen as tensions with the U.S. increase, Central Bank Governor Ebrahim Sheibany said on March 27.

Only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are larger oil suppliers to Japan than Iran.

To contact the reporter on this story: Megumi Yamanaka in Tokyo at myamanaka [a] bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: July 13, 2007 10:59 EDT

May 21, 2007

Kuwait abandons US dollar currency peg

Source: Financial Times via Yahoo

By Simeon Kerr in Dubai
Sun May 20, 1:45 PM ET

Kuwait on Sunday removed its currency peg to the US dollar, throwing plans for a Gulf currency union by 2010 into doubt and raising the prospect that other oil-producing states might abandon long-held dollar pegs.

Sheikh Salem Abdelaziz Al Sabah, governor of the Central Bank of Kuwait, told the official Kuwait news agency that the decision had been made owing to the "detrimental effects of the pegging system to the national economy".

Since late last year, Kuwaiti officials have hinted that the country would revert to a basket of currencies to prevent the sliding dollar increasing the cost of imports, which has stoked inflation to more than 4 per cent, double the historic average. This has encouraged speculators to plough billions of dollars into the dinar over the past few months, betting that the central bank would allow the dinar to appreciate.

On Sunday, the dinar traded up 0.4 per cent as the central bank replaced the peg with a basket of undisclosed currencies. The central bank had allowed the currency to vary up to 3.5 per cent from the peg, but the dinar had been at the top end of the approved trading band for a year owing to the continuing weakness of the dollar and the strength of Kuwait's oil-driven economy.

The dollar is expected to make up about 75-80 per cent of the new basket, reducing the third largest Arab oil exporter's exposure to the weakening dollar.

Kuwait dropped its currency basket in 2003, adopting a dollar peg as part of the Gulf Co-operation Council countries' drive to create a unified economic block with a single currency by 2010. But doubts over the ability of the GCC economies to harmonise have arisen, with one member of the six-nation council, Oman, saying it would not meet the convergence criteria.

"There have already been a lot of question marks over currency union taking place; this raises an additional one," said Simon Williams, an economist with HSBC in Dubai.

Kuwait's move may come as a surprise to other GCC states, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been repeating their commitment to the peg in recent weeks, saying that any revaluation should be agreed collectively by the GCC.

Mr Williams did not believe other GCC states would follow suit on revaluation quickly, as these countries have clung to dollar pegs since the early 1980s.

But other GCC states - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman - are studying the move as an option to mitigate dollar weakness.

January 14, 2007

Why Iran Is Next

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.

December 29, 2006

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

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

December 25, 2006

The second largest oil field in the world is exhausted

Source: Kuwait Times

By Peter J. Cooper
December 25, 2006

KUWAIT: It was an incredible revelation last week that the second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output. Yet that is what the Kuwait Oil Company revealed about its Burgan field. The peak output of the Burgan oil field will now be around 1.7 million barrels per day, and not the two million barrels per day forecast for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, Chairman Farouk Al-Zanki told Bloomberg. He said that engineers had tried to maintain 1.9 million barrels per day but that 1.7 million is the optimum rate. Kuwait will now spend some $3 million a year for the next year to boost output and exports from other fields.

However, it is surely a landmark moment when the world's second largest oil field begins to run dry. For Burgan has been pumping oil for almost 60 years and accounts for more than half of Kuwait's proven oil reserves. This is also not what forecasters are currently assuming.

Last week the International Energy Agency's report said output from the Greater Burgan area will be 1.64 million barrels a day in 2020 and 1.53 million barrels per day in 2030. Is this now a realistic scenario?

The news about the Burgan oil field also lends credence to the controversial opinions of investment banker and geologist Matthew Simmons. His book 'Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy' claims that ageing Saudi oil fields also face serious production falls.

The implications for the global economy are indeed serious. If the world oil supply begins to run dry then the upward pressure on oil prices will be inexorable. For the oil producers this will come as a compensation for declining output, and cushion them against an economic collapse.

However, the oil consumers then face a major energy crisis. Industrialized economies are still far too dependent on oil. And the pricing mechanism of declining oil reserves will press them into further diversification of energy supplies, particularly nuclear, wind and solar power.

All this was foreshadowed in the energy crisis of the late 1970s when a serious inflection in oil supply by the year 2000 was clearly forecast. How ironic that those earlier forecasts now look correct, while more modern and recent forecasts begin to look over optimistic and out-of-date with geological reality.

Nobody can change the geology, and forces of nature that laid down reserves of oil and gas over millions and millions of years. Could it be that we have been blinded by technological advances into thinking that there is some way to beat nature?

The natural world has an uncanny ability to hit back at the arrogance of man, and perhaps a reassessment of reality at this point is called for, rather than a reliance on oil statistics that may owe more to political manoeuvring than geological facts. - AME Info FZ LLC.

December 23, 2006

Iran turns from dollar to euro in oil sales

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.

Although Gulf Arab states are predominantly dollar export earners, they mainly purchase in euros and yen, buying food, consumer goods and manufactured products from Europe and the Far East.

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.

UN Imposes First Sanctions on Iran's Nuclear Program

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

December 21, 2006

Energy Rivalries Set to Heat Up

Source: Houston Chronicle.com

Dec. 21, 2006, 11:18AM
By ALEX NICHOLSON AP Business Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

MOSCOW — A golden statue of Saparmurat Niyazov rotates on a pedestal in Turkmenistan's capital to always face the sun _ a testament to the leader's personality cult and a garish product of the Central Asian nation's vast energy wealth.

Now, the autocratic president's death on Thursday is set to fuel a rivalry between Russia, the United States and China for access to the former Soviet republic's massive gas reserves in what analysts call a repeat of 19th-century rivalries in the region.

"Turkmenistan has returned as a key piece in the new Great Game," said Alfa Bank strategist Chris Weafer, referring to Russia and Britain's jostling for pre-eminence in Central Asia in the 1800s. "It is a big prize."

Over the past year Niyazov, who personally brokered the country's energy deals, had sought to balance Russia's influence _ courting Turkish and, in particular Chinese companies, to help explore and develop its nearly 3 trillion cubic meters of proven gas reserves.

Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly OAO Gazprom controls the only transit route for Turkmen gas exports to other former Soviet states and Europe.

Keen to lock in fresh energy sources to feed its exploding economy, China saw its efforts rewarded with Niyazov's promise to pipe 30 billion cubic meters of gas beginning in January 2009. It also won an invitation last month to tap the giant Iolotan fields, which the late president declared, to international disbelief, to contain 7 trillion cubic meters of natural gas _ or more than even Saudi Arabia's proven reserves.

Washington, meanwhile, has lobbied for a pipeline out of Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea to the west, bypassing Russian territory. That would meet a U.S. strategy of tapping sources of crude and gas outside the Middle East, and drawing Caspian states away from Russia and closer to the West.

Niyazov ultimately proved "too difficult" for U.S. officials to deal with, Weafer said.

The Turkmen leader used revenues from energy investments to nourish lavish construction projects _ a huge, man-made lake in the Kara Kum desert, a vast cypress forest to change the desert climate, a ski resort and a 40-meter (130-foot) pyramid to celebrate the anniversary of the country's independence from the Soviet Union.

"Russia will want to retain its political influence in the country and one assumes that the U.S. will try to use the opportunity (of Niyazov's death) to get back in there, increase its influence and resurrect the plan for the pipeline across the Caspian," Weafer said. "But my guess is that the Chinese will have the biggest delegation at the funeral."

Jonathan Stern, director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, says that multinational oil companies will prick up their ears at the news of Niyazov's death, but serious reforms would need to be undertaken before they could enter the promising market.

"The big guys, the people who might be interested, can't touch the place _ it doesn't come close to meeting the standards of corporate responsibility," he told The Associated Press.

"Obviously they can't afford not to look that this place and the possibility that it might open up _ it's obviously clear that they need to consider this," he said. "I just don't think we'll see any rapid developments. We need to finds out if there will be real change in status quo."

That could come in the form of some indication of democratization in the capital Ashgabat or open auctions of its hydrocarbon reserves.

"Given the resource base, it's always been at the back of peoples minds, but it's become increasingly difficult to work there because of the centralized decision-making and dominance of state-run monopolies," said analyst Hilary McCutcheon of energy consultants Wood MacKenzie. "That may be on the brink of changing."

Turkmenistan's burgeoning relationship with China has also rattled Ukraine, which relies on cheap Turkmen gas supplies to keep its domestic bill down.

Gazprom has a contract until 2009 to buy 50 billion of the 60 billion cubic meters that Turkmenistan produces annually, most of which it then re-exports to Ukraine.

While a recent price hike secured by Niyazov just months before his death suggests that pact is unlikely to be reconsidered in the near future, analysts say little will be clear until a successor is named.

Turkmenistan's State Security Council named Deputy Prime Minister Kurbanguli Berdymukhamedov the acting president, even though the Constitution required Parliament Speaker Overzgeldy Atayev to take over as acting head of state. The council said the Prosecutor General's office has opened a criminal investigation against Atayev, making him ineligible to fill in as president. The move could herald a battle for succession between rival groups in the Turkmen administration.

If Ashgabat makes good on its deal with China, and if fresh reserves are not developed apace, supplies to Ukraine could be cut, analysts say.

If that happens, Kiev would be forced to buy more expensive Russian gas, potentially putting it into a situation similar to a price fight with Gazprom last winter, which resulted in some cuts in supplies to some European cities.

December 13, 2006

Iranian oil bourse

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

Iran plans to reduce use of dollar in trade

Source: The Financial Express

Posted online: Thursday, December 07, 2006 at 0000 hours IST

DEC 6: Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, plans to reduce its use of the US dollar in world trade and increase use of the euro, two Tehran-based newspapers reported.

The Tehran Times said on Wednesday Iran has started substituting euros for dollars in oil sales, citing an unidentified person at the oil ministry. Iran Daily reported Iran wants to cut its dollar-based transactions to a minimum, citing minister of economy Davoud Danesh-Ja’fari. Iran’s policy of selling oil in US dollars ‘‘has not changed yet,’’ said Hojatollah Ghanimifard, executive director for international affairs at National Iranian Oil Co., in a statement read to Bloomberg News from his office.

The US and several European nations are pushing the United Nations to sanction Iran for its nuclear programme.

The dollar touched a 20-month low against the euro this week, and central banks in the Middle East including the United Arab Emirates have plans to convert some of their dollar reserves into euros. Exporting nations ‘‘are only holding so many dollars because of all the trade in the currency, but if the trend begins to move out of it, then it’s going to be a positive for the euro and add to the negative sentiment on the dollar,’’ said David Mann, a foreign-exchange strategist at Standard Chartered Bank Plc in Hong Kong.

Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries members including Qatar earlier this week expressed concern about the falling dollar, saying output should be cut to drive prices higher.

—Bloomberg

Tehran Times: Iran Has Started Substituting Euros for Dollars in Oil Sales

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’’.

December 07, 2006

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Saudi Op-Ed

Source: Falls Curch News Press Online

By Tom Whipple
Thursday, 07 December 2006

On November 29, the Washington Post carried an op-ed by Nawaf Obaid, an advisor to the Saudi government. Despite the obligatory "the opinions expressed are his own", and a press release denying government involvement, the piece clearly carries an important message from Saudi King Abdullah to President Bush, Washington, and the American people.

"Stepping Into Iraq" starts by reminding President Bush that in February 2003 the Saudi Foreign Minister had warned him that if the US removed Saddam Hussein by force he would only be solving one problem by creating five more.

Obaid goes on to point out that had the President followed the Foreign Minister's advice, Iraq would not now be facing "full blown civil war and disintegration."

The thrust of the message, however, is a thinly veiled warning to the US not to walk away from Iraq. Obaid quotes the Saudi Ambassador who said last month: "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." And Obaid adds, "If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

"As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene," he continues.

The Saudis, of course, are reminding us that while America can get on its ships and planes and go home, Saudi Arabia is going to be left right at the heart of what is starting to look more and more like the beginnings of a regional war. Should the fighting increase, it is only a manner of time before the vital interests or perhaps the very existence of the Kingdom, or at least the Royal family, is threatened.

The Saudis are clear about why they are sending this message to America. "Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today." Obviously the American election, with the unmistakable message that the American voters want out is much on Saudi minds. "The Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy," says Obaid.

The critical part of all this is just what the Saudis are going to do in the face of an American threat to withdraw. The op-ed lists three options. First Riyadh could give their Sunni kinsmen (money, arms and logistical support. So far they claim to have refrained from doing this because the Sunni insurgents were busy shooting and blowing up Americans so it was considered highly impolitic to aid them. This of course shows commendable self-restraint as the Iranians have been supporting the Shiites for years.

The second Saudi option would be to fund, equip, and train new "Sunni brigades" to offset the Shiite militias. This of course would formalize the "civil war."

Now, however, we get to the Saudis' third option as suggested by Obaid— oil. "King Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy." "If the Saudis boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices."

Now the notion of the Saudis flooding the 85 million barrel a day world oil market with enough oil to halve the world price and destroy the Iranian economy is a stretch. Saudi oil production has been dropping in recent months and some analysts believe this is from necessity not choice. Even if the Saudis were to attempt to increase output, it would likely be hard-to-sell heavy crude, and the effort would probably damage future oil production by over producing existing fields.

The Saudis may no longer be able to increase production enough to attain their political objectives, however, there is no reason why they can't cut their production. Cutting is easy and it can be done is many ways varying from an overt embargo as happened in the 1970's to more subtle reductions.

Why are the Saudi's continuing to produce circa 9 million barrels a day? Given the tight worldwide oil market, the Saudi's could cut their production in half; the price of oil would more that double; they would get richer; their oil fields would get a much needed rest; and there would be oil left for their great-grand children to export.

What keeps them from cutting production and reaping all these benefits? That too is simple, their relationship with the USA. So long as the US was their number one protector, and needed the oil to keep flowing, the Saudis historically would bend over backwards to help Washington out. The only exception was the short-lived oil boycott back in 1973.

Now, however, everything has changed. Against Saudi advice, the US charged into Baghdad and set 27 million Iraqis at each other's throats. America's partners in the invading "coalition" are bailing out one by one. The US people have just voted to change something and it is clear that "stay the course" is not going to obtain for much longer.

The key Saudi foreign policy objective at the minute clearly is to keep sufficient US military forces in Iraq to keep the lid on the situation for as long as it takes to keep the mess from spilling over into Saudi Arabia itself.

The threat to the existence of the Saudi Royal Family from a spreading civil war now is much greater than any threat from an unhappy Washington. Can anyone imagine the new US Congress voting to invade some other large Middle Eastern country in the near future? With what?

Could a major cutback in Saudi oil production bring down America? Maybe not, but it sure could do a lot of harm. The most blatant action would be cut their oil production in half. Taking 4-5 million barrels a day off the world oil market would get everybody's attention very quickly. Oil prices would certainly go well over $100 per barrel. In short order, the US and world economies would suffer greatly.

The Saudis could, however, bring pressure without doing anything so provocative as a major production cut. Simply ratcheting down production in an unobtrusive manner should be enough to scare Washington into reconsidering leaving Riyadh, as the leader of the world's Sunnis to deal with the mess on its own.

Just before President Bush met with the Iraqi Prime Minister in Jordan last week, Vice President Cheney was summoned to Riyadh to receive the whole Saudi message. It may be many years before we learn exactly what that message was, but already President Bush is back to talking about "staying the course."

It may be a lot harder, or a lot more expensive, for the US to get out of Iraq than anyone ever thought.

November 15, 2006

Iran: The Case for Engagement

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.

October 01, 2006

Intelligence Brief: Escalating Tension between Georgia and Russia

Source: PINR

October 2, 2006

Russian troops in Georgia were put on "high alert" on Sunday and ordered to "shoot to kill if provoked" while defending Moscow's two military bases in the Caucasian country. Tensions between Russia and Georgia are escalating after Tbilisi arrested four Russian officers on September 27 on spying charges.

As a consequence, Moscow withdrew its diplomats from Tbilisi and warned that it could postpone pulling out its troops by 2008 as initially planned. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the press on September 27 that the situation is "very serious," and, therefore, "when the U.N. Security Council will consider the Georgia-Abkhaz settlement in the next two weeks, we will insist on assessing Georgia's activities as subversive."

The crisis has its roots in the pro-Western, pro-U.S. turn of Georgian national elites epitomized by President Mikhail Saakashvili and his "Rose Revolution." The situation had already worsened in August when Georgian security forces attempted to secure control of the Abkhazian river valley of the Kodori Gorge in order to regain control of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Tbilisi then called for the replacement of Russia as the official mediator in Georgia's regional conflicts. Moscow maintains peacekeepers there along with two military bases.

This escalation signals that Georgia is likely to become the catalyst for U.S.-Russian geopolitical conflict for strategic and economic influence in the Caucasus. Washington criticized Moscow's reaction to the officers' arrests and continues to sponsor Tbilisi's gradual integration into N.A.T.O. Saakashvili has never concealed his pro-U.S. stance and frequently accuses Russia of being the destabilizing force behind breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Although Moscow officially says that Georgia is a sovereign state and is free to join N.A.T.O., Russia is working to maintain strong influence in the Trans-Caucasus region.

As PINR pointed out on September 19, the recent Russian-backed Transdniester pro-independence referendum may be a pattern for the two Georgian separatist regions' attempts to gain national independence. The United States and N.A.T.O., however, are likely to be more active in preserving Georgia's national integrity by strongly supporting Saakashvili than they have been in Transdniester. Therefore, a continued dispute between Tbilisi and Moscow with significant U.S. and European participation on the Georgian side is to be expected in the coming months. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Transdniester Votes for Independence"]

The stakes in the southern Caucasus region are significant. Georgia and Azerbaijan form a gateway linking the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and are vital for the control of Central Asia's massive fossil resources, as the well-known Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline testifies.

Georgia's geographic position is also critical to N.A.T.O.'s ability to secure the Black Sea region and it allows Washington to project power toward the Middle East. Furthermore, at a time of uncertainty on Turkey's E.U. accession bid and on Ankara's geostrategic orientation -- due to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's unwillingness to subscribe to U.S. military actions in Iraq -- Georgia's geostrategic importance for Washington is increasing.

Tbilisi's new pro-Western course is predicated upon a strategic relationship with the United States and N.A.T.O. and serves the purpose of a post-Soviet national elite that is eager to eliminate Russian hegemony. Disputes with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are worrying Tbilisi, but, on the other hand, they are enabling the Saakashvili administration to distract international attention from its increasingly authoritarian rule and provide him an effective ideological tool to boost nationalism and use it against remaining Russian influence.

As a consequence, tensions are likely to remain high in the coming months. While it is unlikely that Russia and N.A.T.O. will make moves that could openly put one against the other in the region, Moscow's support for separatist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia will probably continue. Chances that a smooth diplomatic solution to Georgia's regional issues will be implemented soon are decreasing, while Tbilisi's approach to separatism remains militaristic.

September 27, 2006

U.S. may hold off on Iran sanctions

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.

September 26, 2006

U.N. envoy says Gaza a prison for Palestinians

Source: Reuters

By Richard Waddington
September 26, 2006

GENEVA (Reuters) - Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a prison for Palestinians where life is "intolerable, appalling, tragic" and the Jewish state appears to have thrown away the key, a U.N. human rights envoy said on Tuesday.

U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory John Dugard said that the suffering of the Palestinians was a test of the readiness of the international community to protect human rights.

"If ... the international community cannot ... take some action, (it) must not be surprised if the people ... disbelieve that they are seriously committed to the promotion of human rights," he told the United Nations' Human Rights Council.

Israel hit back saying there was an "alarming disconnect" between the rapporteur's report to the U.N.'s human rights watchdog and the experience of Israelis who continued to "face the daily threat of Palestinian terrorism."

The South African lawyer, who has been a special U.N. investigator since 2001, repeated earlier accusations that Israel is breaking international humanitarian law with security measures which amount to "collective punishment."

Israel says its security restrictions, which include the construction of a steel and concrete barrier in the
West Bank, are designed to stop suicide bombers entering Israel. Bombings have declined since the barrier was built.

It also maintains tight restrictions on the movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza, a coastal strip that it pulled out of last year after 38 years of occupation.

"UNPUNISHED"

Dugard also attacked the United States, the European Union and Canada for withdrawing funding for the Palestinian Authority in protest at the governing party Hamas's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.

"Israel violates international law as expounded by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice and goes unpunished. But the Palestinian people are punished for having democratically elected a regime unacceptable to Israel, the U.S. and the EU," Dugard said.

But Israel's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Itzhak Levanon said that by putting the "entire blame" on Israel the report "absolves the terrorists that have taken Palestinian society hostage from even the most minimal responsibility."

Dugard said that three-quarters of Gaza's 1.4 million people were dependent on food aid. Bombing raids by Israel since the June 25 capture of an army corporal by Palestinian militants had destroyed houses and the territory's only power plant.

"Gaza is a prison and Israel seems to have thrown away the key," he said.

The West Bank also faced a humanitarian crisis, albeit not as extreme as Gaza, in part due to the barrier, which Dugard alleged was no longer being justified by Israel on security grounds but was part of a move to annex more land.

Palestinians living between the barrier and the Green Line, the frontier at the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, could no longer freely access schools and places of work and many had abandoned local farms, he said.

"In other countries this process might be described as ethnic cleansing but political correctness forbids such language where Israel is concerned," Dugard said.

September 22, 2006

Rob Newman's History of Oil

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

September 18, 2006

Iran’s oil bourse to be launched

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.

Appetite for oil fuels America's warmongering

Source: Baltimore Sun.com

By Cynthia Tucker
Originally published September 18, 2006

ATLANTA // You haven't heard a word about oil from President Bush or his Cabinet as they've gone about the country on their pre-Halloween scarefest, trying to frighten voters into supporting their so-called war on terror. They've spoken of freedom and civilization, courage and cowardice, Nazis and appeasers.

But they haven't mentioned oil.

By now, of course, most Americans have long since ceased giving any credence to the administration's public explanations for the war in Iraq. Most Americans no longer believe toppling Saddam Hussein was worth the sacrifices, nor do they connect the invasion to the broader war against Islamic jihadists.

The idea that the president has pitched most recently - that the very foundations of Western civilization are at stake, as they were in World War II - is no more persuasive. If Mr. Bush genuinely believed the stakes were that high, he would have called on all the nation's resources, including a military draft. Instead, the White House has gone about business as usual: cutting taxes, refusing to take port security seriously and relying on an all-volunteer military.

While several agendas converged to drive the war wagon to Baghdad, providing the United States access to Middle East oil reserves was always a critical factor. It's not just liberals - Democrats, environmentalists, Hummer-haters - who say so. So do candid conservatives.

In his book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, Boston University professor and West Point grad Andrew Bacevich analyzed four military interventions of the Reagan era: "None of the four episodes can be fully understood except in relation to global reserves of fossil fuels and America's growing dependence on imported oil."

Kevin Phillips, a former Republican political strategist, is blunt in his latest book, American Theocracy: "Oil abundance has always been part of what America fights for, as well as with."

Most Americans don't want to concede that. Perhaps that's why Mr. Bush was able to con the voters into re-electing him: Americans wanted to believe that we went to Iraq to clean out a terrorist infrastructure and to establish a base camp for democracy in the Middle East. No matter that the facts didn't point in that direction; it was easier for us to believe that than to believe we went to secure U.S. access to Mideast oil.

Yet history clarifies the point. The CIA intervened in Iran in the 1950s, clearing a path for the shah, because Iran had nationalized its oilfields, displeasing Anglo-American petroleum interests. Mr. Phillips notes that in 1973, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and others in President Richard M. Nixon's Cabinet "promoted, just short of openly, a plan for using U.S. airborne forces to seize the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi." And surely no one still thinks the United States would have driven Mr. Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991 had petroleum reserves not been at stake.

The current administration kept oil at the forefront of its planning after 9/11, too. In a speech last year, retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, revealed discussions about "mounting an operation to take the oilfields in the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship, and administer the oil and the revenues accordingly."

Mr. Bush and his Cabinet deserve their share of blame for failing to confront Americans with the consequences of our addiction to oil. But we've gone along with their deception. Until we admit the blood price we pay for petroleum, we'll never be able to construct a sane policy toward the Middle East.

Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Her column appears Mondays in The Sun. Her e-mail is cynthiaF*CKSPAM@ajc.com.

September 14, 2006

US nuclear study of Iran called dishonest

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Dafna Linzer in Washington
September 15, 2006

UNITED NATIONS inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program have angrily complained to the Bush Administration and a Republican congressman about a report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest".

International Atomic Energy Agency officials, who produced evidence to refute the report's main claims, said in a letter on Wednesday that the report contained "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements".

The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Peter Hoekstra, the chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy also was hand-delivered to Gregory Schulte, the US ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The agency noted five significant errors in the committee's report, which claimed Iran's nuclear capabilities were more advanced than either the agency or US intelligence had shown.

The report said Iran was producing weapons-grade uranium. The IAEA called that "incorrect", noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of at least 90 per cent; Iran had enriched uranium to 3.5 per cent, and done so under agency monitoring.

The UN letter surfaced as the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he was open to new conditions to resolve Tehran's standoff with the West over its nuclear program and believed talks could end the dispute.

"I am announcing that we are available, we are ready for new conditions," Mr Ahmadinejad said yesterday, before leaving for a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Cuba.

A meeting between the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani, set for yesterday, was postponed.

The IAEA had openly clashed with the Bush Administration on pre-war assessments of alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

After no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the agency came under criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the Administration orchestrated a failed campaign to remove the agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Wednesday's letter was the first time the IAEA has publicly rebutted US allegations about its Iran investigation.

When the congressional report was released last month, Mr Hoekstra said it was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat". The report is still to be voted on and has not been discussed by the full committee.

Several intelligence officers privately said the report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate.

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherrypicked, and a report that trashes the inspectors."

The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a one-time CIA officer who had been a special assistant to John Bolton, the Administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Mr Bolton, now US ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President George Bush's first term in crafting a policy that rejected talks with Tehran.

The Washington Post, Reuters

September 13, 2006

Shiite versus Sunni Muslims

Muslim sects split over the legacy of founder

Source: The Seattle Times

By Andrew Maykuth
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Tuesday, February 28, 2006

The schism between Shiite and Sunni Muslims began almost 1,400 years ago, when disagreements arose over who would succeed the Prophet Muhammad as Islam's leader, or caliph.

Though events of centuries ago may seem distant today, many took place in Iraq in locations currently in the news — places such as Karbala and Samarra, the site of Wednesday's bombing of a famous mosque, one of the holiest Shiite sites.

The rift began when the prophet died in 632. Sunni Muslims, who make up about 85 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, believe that leadership passed to Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's trusted companions. Sunni comes from the word "sunna," which means the tradition of the prophet.

Shiite Muslims, who are a minority in most of the Islamic world, but are the largest strain in modern Iraq and Iran, believe Muhammad's direct offspring succeeded him, rather than a caliph selected by a council. They believe that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, the prophet's son-in-law and first cousin, was the rightful heir. The term Shiite means "advocates for Ali."

Bloody schism

Ali was assassinated after he attempted to broker peace between the rival strains. His son, Hussein bin Ali, who died in battle at Karbala, Iraq, which today is the site of an annual Shiite pilgrimage, was considered the next in line. Their tombs are in the Askariya shrine that was bombed Wednesday.

While all Muslims share some fundamental beliefs about God and Muhammad and the basic obligations of an observant believer, Sunnis and Shiites developed separate traditions following Muhammad's death. One of the critical differences is the Shiite belief in a clerical hierarchy, where the top imams' acts and deeds should be emulated.

"The Shia imam has come to be imbued with Pope-like infallibility, and the Shia religious hierarchy is not dissimilar in structure and religious power to that of the Catholic Church within Christianity," wrote Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin, editor of IslamForToday.com. "Sunni Islam, in contrast, more closely resembles the myriad independent churches of American Protestantism."

In the minds of many Westerners, Shiite became synonymous with radical Islam after the 1979 Revolution in Iran. In reality, there are extremist strains among both Shiites and Sunnis, which do not necessarily represent the views of mainstream Muslims.

Radical branches

Some radical Sunni strains such as the Salafi or the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia regard Shiites as disbelievers and therefore as legitimate targets of their wrath.

Neither denomination is monolithic. Among Shiites, most believe Muhammad's line through Ali and Hussein became extinct in 873 when the 12th Shiite imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, disappeared after inheriting the title as a young boy. "Twelver" Shiites do not accept that the imam died, but that he is merely "hidden" and will return in the future, messianically.

Shiites believe Imam Mahdi was last seen in Samarra, at the mosque destroyed Wednesday. The shrine was built by Caliph al-Mutasim in 836 to replace Baghdad as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and abandoned by Caliph Al-Mutamid in 892.

Additional information from
The Associated Press

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

September 08, 2006

Iran's largest bank blacklisted

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.

America and the oil slick

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.

bushOrwell486width.jpg
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.

August 31, 2006

Peak Oil Forecasters Win Converts on Wall Street to $200 Crude

Source: Bloomberg.com

Peak Oil Forecasters Win Converts on Wall Street to $200 Crude

By Deepak Gopinath

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- On a sweltering Tuesday in mid-July, in the fields outside Pisa, Italy, Willem Kadijk scribbles notes as a ragtag troupe of doomsayers predict the end of the Oil Age.

With his shaved head, jeans and sandals, Kadijk, 48, blends into a crowd gathered under a white tent to hear of the coming calamity. The death of cheap, abundant crude, the forecasters warn, might unleash war and plunge the world into a second Great Depression.

That's not the prophecy of some apocalyptic cult. Kadijk, a hedge fund adviser, had flown from Amsterdam to attend a conference on a geologic theory known as peak oil.

Proponents of this controversial idea say global oil production is now at or near its zenith. Once the flow crests and starts to decline -- and some geologists say it already has -- oil will no longer be able to slake the world's growing thirst for energy. The result will be the oil shock to end all oil shocks. The price of a barrel of crude will spiral to $200 -- and keep rising. To the peaksters, today's energy crunch is nothing next to the pain that will follow.

"Peak oil is a reality," says Kadijk, a senior equity salesman at Kepler Equities, an Amsterdam-based brokerage. He plans to start a fund to capitalize on what he sees as a looming crisis for the world's fossil fuel-based economy and the ultimate bull market in oil.

As energy prices soar and violence convulses the Middle East, the peak-oil movement -- an unlikely alliance of geologists, physicists, oil industry consultants and environmental activists -- is winning converts. Peak-oil ideas are bubbling up from scientific journals and offbeat Web sites, much the way warnings of global warming did a decade ago. For the first time, the peaksters have begun to grab the attention of Washington and Wall Street.

Congressional Caucus

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, former boss of Boston- based Cabot Corp., an oil and chemicals company, has asked the National Petroleum Council, which advises him, to investigate whether oil supplies can keep pace with demand. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, is due to release a study on peak oil this November. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, has formed the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus to sound the alarm.

"The world has never faced a problem like this," Bartlett says.

Everyone agrees we'll run out of crude eventually. Oil, after all, is a finite resource: The Earth holds only so much of it. The controversial issue is when a global peak will occur -- and what will happen then.

Colin Campbell, a British geologist who popularized the peak- oil theory in his book "The Coming Oil Crisis" (Multi-Science Publishing Co. and Petroconsultants SA, 1997, 210 pages) says world production of conventional oil, the kind that comes from gushing wells, is reaching its apex.

End of Oil Age

Society isn't prepared for the consequences, Campbell, 75, says. It's too late to develop alternative sources of power, such as solar cells, nuclear reactors and windmills, to fill the oil gap before energy prices soar, says Campbell, who has a doctorate in geology from the University of Oxford and more than 40 years of experience in the oil industry.

"We have come to the end of the first half of the Oil Age," Campbell says.

Nonsense, says Russ Roberts, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil company. Exxon Mobil, which has reaped record profits as the price of oil has surged, has taken out ads dismissing peak oil in U.S. newspapers such as the New York Times.

The Irving, Texas-based oil giant says the peaksters are being alarmist. In all, the world probably has 4 trillion barrels of oil left, four times the amount we have used so far, the ad says.

Time to Think

"The world is nowhere near running out of oil," Roberts says. Exxon Mobil geologists believe global oil production will keep rising through 2030, he says.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates, whose chairman, Daniel Yergin, is a leading peak-oil critic, says production will reach an "undulating plateau" sometime in the future.

"Our outlook goes to 2020, and we see no evidence of a peak," CERA geologist Peter Jackson says. "Eventually, we will start to see a decline. There is still time to think about alternatives."

Predictions of an imminent oil famine are as old as the industry itself. When production at the first U.S. wells, located in western Pennsylvania, began to decline in the late 19th century, some people predicted the country would soon run out of oil. Then crude was discovered in east Texas, whose oil fields yielded so much black gold that the Texas Railroad Commission capped production to support prices.

Peak Moment

In the past, Campbell or his disciples have forecast the oil peak down to the year or even the day only to push back the fateful moment. In 1997, Campbell said it would occur in 2001. Now, he says total production, which includes oil from deep-water wells and fuel derived from natural gases, will reach its height sometime after 2010.

Kenneth Deffeyes, a geologist and professor emeritus at Princeton University, first pinpointed Nov. 24, 2005, as the peak- oil date and then revised it to Dec. 16, 2005.

Campbell says the exact day or year isn't important. What matters is that peak oil is coming, and soon. Almost a century and a half after the first U.S. wells were drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, production has begun to decline in more than a dozen countries, including the U.S., according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Production at the giant Cantarell oil field in Mexico is likely to decline 8 percent this year, according to Mexican state oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos.

U.S. Addiction

At a time when U.S. President George W. Bush has urged the country to break its addiction to foreign oil, the fact is, the U.S. is becoming ever more dependent on overseas crude. U.S. oil production peaked 36 years ago, in 1970, at 11.3 million barrels a day. Since then, output has fallen 39 percent, to 6.8 million barrels a day, or 8 percent of the world total, in 2005, according to BP.

Investors have started to listen to the peaksters. Billionaire Boone Pickens says he's a peak believer. So does Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal Inc. and now runs Clarium Capital Management LLC, a $2.1 billion hedge fund firm. Pickens, Thiel and other investors are positioning themselves to profit from what they say will be the biggest oil squeeze of all time.

Even some oil companies and industry veterans sound nervous. Chevron Corp. has run a series of full-page ads in U.S. newspapers that highlight surging oil consumption and declare, "The era of easy oil is over."

Chicken Littles

Thierry Desmarest, chief executive officer of Paris-based Total SA, told the World Gas Conference in Amsterdam in June that global oil production would peak in 2020. Matthew Simmons, whose Houston-based investment bank, Simmons & Co., trades oil and gas stocks, says Saudi Arabia's production may decline soon.

Alex Cranberg, chairman of Denver-based independent oil company Aspect Energy LLC, calls the peaksters Chicken Littles -- misguided souls who think the sky is falling.

In fact, Cranberg hired two people to dress in chicken costumes and hand out fliers dismissing peak oil at the conference Kadijk attended in July.

Like many oil-industry vets, Cranberg, 51, says market forces and technological advances will ultimately cure our energy ills. As oil prices rise, companies will be more willing to hunt for crude and extract it. They'll invest in expensive deep-water wells and new technologies to wring more oil from existing fields. Consumers will start conserving energy. Even now, stock market investors and Silicon Valley venture capitalists are pouring billions of dollars into companies developing ethanol, solar power and other alternative sources of energy.

$3-a-Gallon Gas

More and more, however, the peaksters are drowning out everyone else, Cranberg says. "You can't turn around without seeing or hearing these ideas," he says. "I think they are gaining."

You don't have to be a geologist to understand why. The price of crude has tripled since 2000. In the U.S., $3-a-gallon gasoline has sapped consumers' confidence. Nearly half of Americans believe the economy is doing poorly, according to a July 28-Aug. 1 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. Fifty-nine percent of Americans expressed a negative view of Bush's handling of the economy.

"If oil was still at $20, no one would be talking about peak oil," says Manouchehr Takin, senior petroleum upstream analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, a London-based consulting firm.

High oil prices are only part of the story, however. The world is straining to feed its energy habit. Today, we consume 85 million barrels of oil a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). By 2030, the world will devour 118 million barrels a day, as China and India emerge as economic superpowers.

Big Question Mark

No one knows for sure how much oil the world has. That's a big question mark because the peaksters say production will max out once half of the oil has been pumped. So far, we've extracted about 1 trillion barrels in all. In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated global resources at 3 trillion barrels, enough to push peak production out to 2037, according to the EIA. Campbell puts the total lower, at 2.5 trillion barrels.

Oil is certainly getting harder -- and more expensive -- to find and extract. Oil discoveries plummeted to 5 billion barrels in 2005 from 90 billion barrels in 1964, according to Campbell.

"Discovery is in long-term decline, and spending more money won't increase it," says Chris Skrebowski, editor of the London- based Petroleum Review, an industry journal.

OPEC's Stash

Oil companies have to find enough crude to offset dwindling production at existing fields, which can decline by more than 8 percent a year, and to keep pace with rising demand. Most of that increase will have to come from members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which are often cauldrons of discontent, war and terror.

The cartel's members -- Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela -- together sit atop 75 percent of the world's reserves and account for about 42 percent of total production, according to BP.

OPEC countries are hardly paragons of economic and political stability. Most of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, came from Saudi Arabia. The war in Iraq has hurt that country's ability to pump oil. Bush says Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has said he wants to diversify oil exports away from the U.S.

In its 2005 Energy Outlook, Exxon Mobil says the combined production of non-OPEC countries will peak sometime from 2010 to 2020. OPEC will be able to fill the gap, the report says. OPEC produced about 30 million barrels a day in 2005; by 2030, OPEC would have to churn out 47 million barrels a day -- almost 57 percent more than it did last year -- to satisfy the world's needs, the report says.

Meeting the Call

"We believe the resource base will support this increase, assuming that investments in development are made in a timely fashion," the report says.

OPEC countries will invest a combined $100 billion in the five years through 2010 so they can increase output, OPEC spokesman Omar Ibrahim says. "We are set to meet the extra call on OPEC to 2030," Ibrahim says.

Yet even now, OPEC nations are struggling to keep up. Since 2000, OPEC has gradually lost the spare pumping capacity its members can use as an emergency reserve to moderate prices. The cushion has dwindled to about 1.5 million barrels a day from 6 million barrels a day, Takin says.

What's more, neither the peaksters nor oil industry executives know for sure how much oil OPEC has and how much it can actually produce. OPEC countries haven't been transparent about their reserves or production capacity, says Mike Rodgers, a partner at PFC Energy, a Washington-based oil industry consulting firm. "OPEC is the big unknown," he says.

Overstated Reserves

Many energy analysts believe OPEC nations began overstating their resources in the 1980s, when the cartel linked members' production quotas to the size of their reserves, says Mamdouh Salameh, an independent oil economist. In the late '80s, cartel members raised their reserve estimates by a combined 300 billion barrels even though none of them had actually found much more oil.

In his 2005 book "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" (John Wiley & Sons, 448 pages, $24.95), Simmons says the Saudis have pumped so much oil so fast that the country's biggest oilfields face declining output.

"Saudi Arabia is keeping everything in the dark," Simmons, 63, says.

Saudi officials have dismissed peak-oil theorists and suggestions that their country is running on empty.

Saudi Assurances

"We currently manage approximately 260 billion barrels of oil," Abdallah Jum'ah, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the government-owned oil giant, said at an oil and gas conference in June. "We continue to expand our reserve base, and conservatively estimate our additional potential of recoverable oil to be in the range of 200 billion barrels. At Saudi Aramco's present production levels, that means we will have well over a century's worth of oil to produce."

Herman Franssen, former chief economist at the Paris-based International Energy Agency, says some OPEC members, such as Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela, may be reluctant or unable to produce more oil even as prices soar, largely for political reasons.

"We may never see the volumes of conventional oil production that we see in official forecasts," says Franssen, who's now an oil industry consultant in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Sadad al-Husseini, who spent 35 years working for Saudi Aramco, says Saudi Arabia's reserves are sound but that Kuwait, which says it has reserves of 101.5 billion barrels, probably has half that much. Iran, with official reserves of 132.5 billion barrels, has likewise overstated its reserves, says Husseini, who was an executive vice president at Saudi Aramco before retiring in 2004.

Assume the Worst

"Even with high prices, it will be very difficult for world production of conventional oil to exceed 90 million barrels per day within the next 10 years," he says. That's millions of barrels a day short of what the EIA says the world will need in 2015.

Political leaders, business executives and investors should assume OPEC won't be able to satisfy future demand, Rodgers says. "From an energy-security point of view, if you believe in a non- OPEC peak and OPEC is not being transparent, we have to assume they don't have it," he says.

The precarious balance of supply and demand in the oil markets became even clearer in early August when London-based BP Plc announced it would temporarily shut down its Prudhoe Bay oil field on the North Slope of Alaska because of pipeline corrosion. The news drove already-high oil prices up more than $2 to almost $77.

Alaskan Decline

Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in the U.S., is part of the peak-oil story. The field was discovered in 1968 and came onstream in 1977. Since then, it has yielded more than 11 billion barrels of oil.

Yet even before the August mishap, this vast field had begun to die. Its output has fallen 73 percent to 400,000 barrels a day from a height of 1.5 million barrels a day in 1989.

Prudhoe Bay is following the life cycle of oil fields across the U.S. and around the world, a phenomenon known as the Hubbert Curve, which takes its name from M. King Hubbert.

Fifty years ago, Hubbert, then a geologist at Shell Oil Co.'s research lab in Houston, postulated that U.S. oil production would follow a bell-shaped curve.

At the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Hubbert predicted that total annual U.S. output would climb steadily, level off sometime between 1965 and '70 and then decline after about half of the country's reserves had been depleted.

Hubbert's Peak

The U.S. reached what geologists now refer to as Hubbert's Peak in 1970. Hubbert died in 1989 at the age of 86.

It wasn't until the late 1990s when Hubbert's ideas, which had percolated for decades in academia and oil circles, began to reach a wide audience via Campbell, the British geologist.

Now in his eighth decade, Campbell is a grandfatherly man with a shock of gray hair. He hardly comes across as a doom- monger. He works out of a two-story house in Ballydehob, a village on the western edge of Ireland.

Campbell spent 40 years exploring for oil for Amoco Corp. and other companies. He helped Amoco search for oil in Ecuador and then, during the 1980s, led its exploration in Norway. He later joined PetroFina SA, the oil exploration company now owned by Total.

After retiring from PetroFina in 1990, Campbell joined forces with Jean Laherrere, a retired French geophysicist who had spent 25 years working at Total, to analyze production profiles for the world's countries.

Campbell says he and Laherrere, now 75, looked at their data and concluded global oil production was approaching its zenith. In 1998, they co-wrote an article for Scientific American magazine titled "The End of Cheap Oil" that helped popularize their cause.

Coming Crunch

"The world is not running out of oil -- at least not yet," Campbell and Laherrere wrote. "What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend."

In 2000, Campbell founded the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, an informal organization for fellow travelers. Now known as ASPO International, the group has sponsored five annual conferences, including the one in Pisa in July, which drew more than 230 people. It's now run by Kjell Aleklett, a physics professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. Twenty independent national ASPO groups have sprung up around the world, from Australia to France, to the U.S.

Many peaksters are driven by a moral imperative to spread the word. Campbell says he's a scientist, not a social or environmental crusader. Even so, he says he's worried that oil has harmed human society and the planet. Since the Oil Age dawned, nearly 150 years ago, the Earth's population has soared six-fold, he says.

Man Alone

"Man is the only animal that uses external energy," Campbell says.

Asked why he has championed the peak-oil theory, Laherrere quotes Antoine de Saint-Exupery, author of "The Little Prince": "We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."

Activists have jumped on the peak-oil bandwagon and added their own, often strident, voices to the debate over the future of oil.

Jim Kunstler, a writer-activist who lives in Saratoga Springs, New York, says peak oil will ultimately destroy suburbia and plunge the U.S. into a violent dark age of feudalism.

"The question is, Can we run our shit the way we are running our shit?" Kunstler, 57, says. In 2005, Kunstler wrote "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" (Atlantic Monthly Press, 320 pages, $23), which warns of the havoc to come.

Dieoff.com

Lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, a Web site run by lawyer and peak- oil entrepreneur Matt Savinar, warns, "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon." The site sells peak-inspired books and products, including an investor's guide to peak oil.

Another site, dieoff.com, says wars over oil and other natural resources will eventually erupt and millions of people will be wiped out.

Stephen Andrews, a Denver-based energy consultant who founded ASPO-USA in June 2005, says the alarmists have hurt the peak-oil movement.

"The peak-oil tent has different voices -- some shrill, some more sober -- reaching different conclusions from the same facts," Andrews, 59, says.

Andrews has attracted more-sober voices to the movement. Last November, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper helped co-sponsor a two- day peak-oil conference organized by Andrews.

"I think the people most exuberant about peak oil underestimate how much unconventional sources of oil will help flatten the peak, but to say that there is no peak is shortsighted," Hickenlooper says.

Crash Program

The world would have to embark on a crash mitigation program 20 years in advance to prevent peak oil from hobbling the global economy, says Robert Hirsch, a senior energy program adviser at San Diego-based research and engineering firm Science Applications International Corp. "And I consider myself an optimist," says Hirsch, 71, who included his findings in a 2005 study on peak oil for the U.S. Department of Energy and estimates such a program would cost the world $1 trillion a year.

Some investors and analysts see lots of opportunities in a post-peak world.

Charles Maxwell, senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co., an independent research firm based in Greenwich, Connecticut, says high oil prices will spur companies to invest in unconventional sources. Few people, however, realize how much such projects will cost or how long they will take to come onstream, he says.

Take the Canadian oil sands. This region in Alberta holds 175 billion barrels of oil, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the world's second-largest reserves.

`Really Big'

"It's big. It's really big," Neil Camarta, senior vice president for oil sands at Calgary-based Petro-Canada, says of the region. "It can keep America going for 25 years."

The oil sands hold vast stores of bitumen, a tarlike substance that is mined, rather than pumped, and then processed into oil that can be refined. The process is expensive -- and getting more so. Rising operating and capital costs have driven the price of mining and upgrading bitumen to as much as $40 a barrel, Camarta says.

By 2020, Canada's oil sands will yield 4 million barrels a day, almost four times what they do now, according to CAPP. That sounds like a lot until you realize that 4 million barrels is just over a third of what Saudi Arabia produced per day in 2005.

Pickens, who built Mesa Petroleum Co. into one of the world's largest independent oil and gas producers, says he sees trouble -- and opportunity -- in peak oil. Pickens, who collected a degree in geology from Oklahoma State University in 1951, has called for the construction of more nuclear power plants and the promotion of alternative energy. He says he's invested in the Canadian oil sands.

Pickens's Picks

"I'm a disciple of Hubbert," Pickens, 77, says. "I think we've peaked and we are going to see an undersupply of oil."

Clarium Capital's Thiel says he began thinking about peak oil in 1999. As the Internet bubble grew that year, Thiel, 38, says he started to wonder about other risks that investors might be ignoring and seized on the uncertain future of oil.

"Energy will be systematically undervalued until peak oil is priced in," Thiel says. He's bought shares of Calgary-based EnCana Corp., which has invested in exploration and new production, and of oil services companies like New York-based Schlumberger Ltd. and Houston-based Weatherford International Ltd., which stand to profit as explorers hunt for oil and drill wells. Thiel says he's leery of U.S. oil majors, such as Exxon Mobil, because they may become targets of new taxes once the government wakes up to peak oil.

Thiel himself says the peak will come by 2008 -- if it hasn't already. "Geology will trump technology," he says.

Coal, Uranium

Eric Sprott, CEO of Toronto-based Sprott Asset Management Inc., says he became a peak-oil convert after hearing Campbell speak in 2004. Sprott, who helps manage 3.6 billion Canadian dollars (US$3.2 billion), says the bull market in energy has only just begun. He's invested 36 percent of his firm's assets in a variety of areas that could benefit from peak oil. His flagship hedge fund returned 41 percent in 12 months ended July 31, he says.

Sprott's investments include St. Louis-based Arch Coal Inc. and Brisbane, Australia-based Macarthur Coal Ltd. His oil and gas picks include Halifax, Nova Scotia-based Corridor Resources Inc.; Denver- based Delta Petroleum Corp.; and Houston-based Ultra Petroleum Corp. He has also invested in Australian uranium companies Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. and Paladin Resources Ltd.

Midnight Ride

Meanwhile, the peaksters aren't about to let up. They'll convene in Boston on Oct. 25-27 to sound their alarm at a conference called "Time for Action: A Midnight Ride for Peak Oil." The title is a reference to the American patriot Paul Revere, whose horse ride in 1775 warned Massachusetts colonists that British soldiers were advancing. The battle that followed, at Lexington and Concord, marked the beginning of the American Revolution.

It was just 84 years after Revere took his ride, on Aug. 27, 1859, that Edwin Drake struck oil in Titusville, ushering in the Oil Age. Exxon Mobil says the era of oil isn't about to end. In one of its ads, the company says, "Oil is a finite resource, but because it is so incredibly large, a peak will not occur this year, next year or for decades to come." The ad depicts a man looking through binoculars at a snowcapped mountain whose summit is hidden by clouds.

Campbell says the illustration actually drives home the point Exxon Mobil is trying to avoid. "Even though it is obscured by clouds, we know there is a peak," Campbell says. His investor followers are betting he's right.

August 29, 2006

Iraq pumps crude north to Turkey after 7-week halt

Source: Reuters

LONDON, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Iraq started pumping crude oil on Tuesday through its vital northern pipeline to Turkey after sabotage stopped shipments for nearly two months, shipping sources said.

Iraq had managed to pump 8.5 million barrels of crude from its giant Kirkuk oilfields to Turkey's Ceyhan export terminal on the Mediterranean before sabotage halted flows on July 9.

"Pumping resumed at 0930 Turkish local time (0630 GMT)," a shipping source said on Tuesday.

An Iraqi oil official downplayed the resumption.

"This is a test, it happens from time to time and it is not for export purposes," he told Reuters.

Iraq had restarted Kirkuk exports in June after a nearly year-long halt due to sabotage, raising hopes of a major increase in export sales and revenue for the country.

Iraqi oil officials had aimed for steady Kirkuk crude exports of 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) via term contracts from August.

But sabotage put paid to this target.

Iraq exported 181,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Kirkuk from Ceyhan in July, compared with 100,000 bpd in June.

When the line is down, the country relies exclusively on exports of around 1.5 million bpd of Basra Light from its southern Gulf terminal. (Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia in Baghdad)

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

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.)

August 24, 2006

Iran Still Rising

Source: AL-AHRAM On-line [Cairo]

The greatest beneficiary of Israel's military misadventure in Lebanon is Iran, writes Mustafa El-Labbad*

The smoke cleared and the dust settled over Lebanon to reveal a configuration of regional geopolitical dynamics markedly different to those that existed before the Israeli invasion. Israel's architecture of destruction, drafted by its raiding aircraft across large swaths of southern Lebanon, could not conceal the limits of Israeli military might. The Israeli war machine has lost its aura of invulnerability. Hizbullah, by contrast, now stands taller in the region than ever, having succeeded in grinding the Israeli invasion to a halt and, simultaneously, in retaining its own arms and regional alliances. As a result, the US flew to Israel's rescue, producing Security Council Resolution 1701, turning a debacle on the ground to Israel's relative strategic advantage. But no UN resolution can alter the shift in the regional balances that ensued from the confrontation, and there is no doubt that Iran, Washington's actual target in this war, has emerged even more influential.

In the opening phases of Israel's aerial bombardment of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure, Condoleezza Rice remarked that the death and destruction were the birth pangs of a new Middle East. Yet it appears that the new Middle East that is emerging is not the one she had in mind. After a full month of warfare, which Israel failed to resolve in its favour in spite of the complete military and political support it received from the US, a new set of strategic balances has begun to impose itself on the regional map. In keeping with the laws of Hegelian dialectics, the quantitative political and geo-strategic changes that have taken place in our region as the result of the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and, finally, the war on Lebanon in 2006, have given rise to profound and far reaching qualitative changes. At the heart of these changes is the emergence of Iran as a prominent regional power.

Iran's growing regional influence is the product of the interaction of numerous factors, foremost being the catalogue of policy failures of the ruling neo-conservative administration in Washington. True, Tehran has slowly and steadily worked to weave a fabric of relations extending from its western boundaries across Iraq and Syria to southern Lebanon, making it possible to speak of an "Iranian-Israeli frontier." However, there can be no denying that America's floundering military adventures in the region have given Iran just the boon its regional ambitions needed. The failure of US policy towards Iraq, in particular, opened the door to Iran to become a key player in Iraqi politics. In like manner, the failure of the Israeli venture in Lebanon has strengthened the moral and political hand of Hizbullah and, by extension, Iran, the Lebanese resistance movement's source of spiritual authority and political and military support.

One of the main aims of 1701 may well have been reducing Iranian-Israeli geopolitical proximity by compelling Hizbullah forces to withdraw north of the Litani River, an objective Israel failed to accomplish militarily. However, international political boundaries are, in reality, no more than a theoretical construct that ultimately reflects the current balances of regional and international power. Lebanon, since its establishment as an independent nation in 1943, has been a focal point of regional tensions and an infallible gauge of the shifts in regional balances of power. This year, the US has tangibly acknowledged the Lebanese dynamic by backing a military adventure the major purpose of which was to sap Iran's regional strength by stripping Hizbullah of its arms. Helping to pave the way to this was the White House's perception of the efficacy of Israel's military might. Key figures in the Bush administration had been under the impression that Israel's army could accomplish the mission of disarming Hizbullah in the space of a couple of weeks, providing that Israeli forces had an internationally acceptable pretext for going on the offensive and that their military operations would focus on the predominantly Shia areas of Lebanon (the south, the Bekaa Valley and the southern suburbs of Beirut), so as to neutralise Lebanon's other religious parties.

Iran, for its part, was operating under different assumptions. It believed that a military confrontation between Hizbullah and Israel would put Arab regimes under unprecedented strain, especially in view of the collapse of the peace process and Israeli belligerency in the occupied territories. Tehran would then be able to turn the fallout from these pressures towards the further expansion of its regional standing and influence. Iran also knew that it could count on the ideological and combat fervour of Hizbullah fighters, through whom it would be able to deliver political and military messages to various regional and international forces.

Where the thinking of Washington and Tehran coincided was in regarding Lebanon as a "rehearsal" for future wars. While Israel was testing American-made military high-tech hardware and demonstrating the ability of "smart" bombs to destroy underground fortifications (Iran's underground nuclear facilities being their eventual target), Hizbullah forces proved their efficacy at thwarting an Israeli advance and at harvesting Israeli tanks and artillery using Iranian-made anti-tank missiles. In addition, Hizbullah succeeded in delivering some powerful messages on its behalf and on behalf of Tehran via the Iranian-made missiles it dispatched in ever increasing depths into Israel. Above all, Washington was given to understand that Tehran could indeed strike heavily populated Tel Aviv with its Shihab-3 missiles if Washington launched an attack against Iran.

Iran has improved its regional hand with consummate skill. Building on its geographic position overlooking the Gulf, from where it could obstruct the passage of oil to international markets, and upon its network alliances, it has so enhanced its spiritual and ideological standing among Arab Shia that Iran has become to them what the Soviet Union was to communists around the world. In this context, the fight of the southern Lebanese Shia to liberate Shebaa Farms and other such just causes has worked to promote Iran's regional interests, just as the Soviet Union once sought to capitalise on the struggles of communist movements elsewhere in the world.

In the absence of an Arab alternative, two regional projects are vying with one another: the neo-conservatives' "new Middle East", stripped of its Arab identity and dominated by Israel, and the other new Middle East, dominated by the Shia "International" or "Comintern". Because the Arabs are highly suspicious of both, but have no alternative of their own, or the ability to impose one even if they had, the region appears headed for another collision revolving around Iran's nuclear capacity. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Washington, which has been outmanoeuvred by Iran at every turn, pressured the Security Council to pass Resolution 1696, giving Iran until the end of this month to halt all uranium enrichment activities or face sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But, rather than dampening Iran's regional ambitions, international sanctions, which are certain to be forthcoming, will only fuel its resolve. We can therefore expect next month to usher in a new and qualitatively different burst of escalating tensions in the region.

Iran has demonstrated, on numerous occasions, that it has the political acumen to strengthen its presence as a regional power using means far less formidable than those available to the US. The neoconservatives in Washington, by contrast, are plodding their way from one disaster to the next, constantly leaving one predicament by plunging headlong into another with absolute confidence in the ability of military force to solve their problems while blind to the impact their pugnacity has on US interests, and on those of its allies, in the region.

American policymakers still have to wake up to the fact that to the Arabs the regional power struggle with Iran comes second in importance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They should also realise that Washington's policies have hampered the ability of Arab governments to perform their regional roles effectively and in a manner that would enable them to keep Iranian ambitions within proper bounds and, simultaneously, to secure their own regional goals. If Iran's persistence at promoting itself as a regional power at the expense of the Arabs may have momentarily blurred the above-mentioned order of priorities, Washington's stubborn refusal to respond to the Arabs' minimum demands for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will inevitably propel the region into the embrace of the "Iranian Comintern".

* The writer is a political analyst specialised in Iranian affairs.

Japan Says Giving Up Iran's Oil Would Be Difficult

Source: Bloomberg.com

Excerpts:

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki said it would be difficult for Japan to cut off Iranian oil imports should the United Nations impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development program.

Japan is seeking to exempt oil from economic sanctions that the UN would impose upon Iran if the country doesn't abandon the program, the Yomiuri newspaper said on Aug. 21, without saying where it got the information. Japan gets about 14 percent of its petroleum from Iran, making it the third largest supplier of oil to Japan. Iran yesterday said it is ready to hold negotiations on nuclear development.

"Given Japan's high reliance on Iran for oil, it won't be so easy for Japan's economy to stop'' importing it, Tanigaki said in a speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan in Tokyo. ``While the issue of nuclear non-proliferation is very important for Japan, securing sufficient oil supplies is in the national interest.''

Tanigaki reiterated that Japan's relations with China and South Korea have are "abnormal'' now and need to be improved. He said that Japan's friendly ties with the U.S. can't solve Japan's political issues with Asian nations.

"The Japan-U.S. alliance is a key one and should continue to be so,'' Tanigaki said. ``We certainly cannot conclude that smooth relations between Japan and the U.S. will solve all our problems.''

Threat of military action hangs over escalating tensions with Iran

Source: The Mercury News [San Francisco Bay Area]

2006-08-24

Excerpts:

"We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive approach. "By the spring of next year, we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options."

"If George Bush is serious about denying Iran nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't respond to our diplomacy, then we're headed to a conflict," said Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a research center with strong ties to the "neo-conservatives" who shaped Iraq policy in the Bush administration.

"There exists a very real possibility that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, then Iran will inflict a devastating defeat upon the U.S. in Iraq, and also take the fight to the U.S. across the Middle East," concluded an analysis Wednesday by Chatham House, a respected British research center.

A unilateral U.S. strike probably would inflame world opinion anew against America. It could send global oil prices over $100 a barrel and tip the world into recession. And U.S. voters weary of war could punish Bush and his Republican Party in 2008 - as might Congress in the meantime if Democrats win control of it in November.

"When all the political and strategic pros and cons of an American military strike on Iran are taken into account, there is good reason to believe that the U.S. will stick to diplomacy," Philip Gordon, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution, a center-left research center, concluded in a recent article. "I know of almost no one who ... sees it as anything other than a last resort."

Still, Gordon added, "it would be foolish" to completely dismiss the idea that "Washington is getting ready to bomb Iran."

There are other possible scenarios. Iran might cave to international pressure and give up its uranium-enrichment programs. A diplomatic stalemate might leave the issue unresolved through Bush's term. The international community might be able to force Iran's cooperation by imposing tough economic sanctions.

That's the American game plan for the moment. U.S. diplomats are trying to come up with a package of sanctions that could win Security Council approval, but Russia and China oppose tough measures and each holds veto power. Both have strong economic ties to Iran.

Many experts think the right mix of sanctions could work. Despite the windfall it's reaped from skyrocketing oil prices, Iran's economy is shaky. Although Iran is the second-largest exporter of Middle East oil, behind Saudi Arabia, it imports about 40 percent of its refined gasoline. The government has drafted plans for fuel rationing.

"The mullahs have terribly mismanaged the economy. They're economically vulnerable," said Peter Brookes, an Iran specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center. "The hard part, when you're talking about sanctions, is getting the Europeans to do it and getting the Chinese and the Russians not to oppose it at the Security Council."

The Security Council passed a resolution in July demanding that Iran shut down its uranium-enrichment program, but Russia and China blocked American efforts to include an automatic trigger for sanctions if Iran failed to comply.

Iran says it wants enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, not bombs, but few accept that. U.S. intelligence officials think Iran is on track to produce a nuclear weapon over the next four to nine years.

Iran's leaders show no sign of backing down on the nuclear issue. Their prestige in the region is on the rise, as Iranian support for Shiite militias in Iraq and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon has expanded Tehran's influence.

f diplomacy fails and the Iranian regime presses ahead with its nuclear program, Bush could order airstrikes, although Iran's nuclear facilities are hidden and scattered. Or he could let Israel do it; in 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq to prevent it from being used to develop weapons. It's the nation most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

"Political reality may force him to punt it. His credibility is, in a sense, shot internationally. Domestically, there's no appetite for a military confrontation," said Thomas Alan Schwartz, who teaches diplomatic history at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. "He might be faced with the issue of whether he wants to go out with a bang, so to speak, or leave it to his successor."

Brookes of Heritage, who agrees with Bush's zero-tolerance policy toward a nuclear-armed Iran, suggested that events may force a compromise.

"We may have to live with a nuclear Iran," he said.

Israel's military chief admits failings

Source: Yahoo/Associated Press

JERUSALEM - In a letter to the troops, Israel's military chief acknowledged publicly for the first time Thursday that there were shortcomings in the military's performance during the recent fighting with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Israel went into the monthlong war as a united front against Hezbollah, but since the fighting ended last week, the country has splintered into a cacophony of reproachful voices.

Criticism of the military's preparedness and tactics swelled after the battles ended without a clear-cut victory for Israel. Questions about the wisdom of 11th-hour battles and reports of food and water shortages have fueled demands for a state inquiry into the war's conduct and the resignation of Israel's wartime leaders.

In a letter to Israeli fighters, military chief Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz wrote: "Alongside the achievements, the fighting uncovered shortcomings in various areas — logistical, operational and command. We are committed to a thorough, honest, rapid and complete investigation of all the shortcomings and successes."

"Questions will be answered professionally, and everyone will be investigated — from me down to the last soldier," according to the letter, released by the military Thursday.

War broke out July 12, hours after Hezbollah fighters killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two in a bold cross-border raid. About 160 Israelis — one-quarter of them civilians — died in the fighting, and northern Israel was all but paralyzed by nearly 4,000 rockets fired from across the border in Lebanon.

While Halutz was owning up to military missteps, the head of the Shin Bet security service was calling the war "a fiasco" in his first public statement on the fighting.

"The north was abandoned, the government systems collapsed there completely," Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin told a closed security forum, according to meeting participants. "There were many failures, and the public sees and understands this. This is not the time to whitewash. The truth must be told. ... Someone has to provide explanations and take responsibility."

During a visit to the rocket-scarred north on Thursday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised that rebuilding the region would be a top priority.

"Billions will be invested ... to turn the north into the paradise it can be," Olmert said, estimating that up to $2.3 billion could be budgeted over the course of several years.

Additionally, more than $300 million raised abroad will be channeled to help towns in the north, he said, promising that a plan would be approved within two weeks.

In the meantime, Olmert has acquiesced to calls for a war probe, and is expected to decide within days what kind of inquiry to conduct.

The most sweeping inquiry would be a state commission, with powers to dismiss government and military officials.

A vocal group of reserve soldiers and bereaved parents has been demanding that Olmert, Halutz and Defense Minister Amir Peretz step down, or that the government conduct an honest reckoning of what went wrong by appointing a state commission of inquiry.

The war's outcome has also unleashed a fierce spasm of political infighting. The governing coalition, established in May, has become even more brittle, with partners feuding over proposed budget cutbacks to pay for the war, which cost up to an estimated $9 billion.

Peretz — a former union boss with scant military experience — has especially come under fire, both within and outside his Labor Party. On top of having his credentials questioned, Peretz now faces a rebellion within his own party by members who oppose the budget cutbacks on the ground they would hurt Israel's disadvantaged.

"Never has his leadership seemed more short-lived," political writer Nadav Eyal wrote in Israel's Maariv newspaper on Thursday.

----

It seems that Israel's efforts at dismantling Hizbollah were a complete failure. Not only did they not succeed but Israel's leaders are being widely criticized both from withing and without Israel. What does this mean for future support for such incursions?

August 23, 2006

Iran now the key power in Iraq, says UK think-tank

Source: UK Times Online

A series of strategic errors by the Bush Administration in its War on Terror has left Iran holding virtually all the cards in the power play of the Middle East, according to a report by Britain's most influential think-tank published today.

The report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House - entitled Iran, its neighbours and the regional crises - paints a bleak picture of the prospects for the United States and its Western allies as they try to put a cap on Iran's nuclear programme.

It describes Iran as a state that sits with "confident ease" in the region and says, crucially, that Iran has replaced the United States as the most influential power in Iraq, able to influence events on the street and not just behind the security barricades of Baghdad's Green Zone.

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the War on Terror in the Middle East," says the report from Chatham House's Middle East Programme.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

The Chatham House experts wrote that their original report was to analyse Iran's regional influence in the context of international efforts to prevent it developing nuclear weapons.

Its scope was also to encompass the complexities of Iranian domestic politics and the clash between the "apocalyptic world-view" of President Ahmadinejad and the more pragmatic, conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But as the conflicts grew in Gaza and the Lebanon, where Iran is the key backer of the Hezbollah militia, the 50-page report was expanded to consider all other inter-connected regional crises.

"A recurring theme is the desire of most states to maintain good relations with Iran or, where the relationship is less strong, to avoid antagonisation or any further deterioration," the report says.

"There exist a variety of reasons for this which have generally been strengthened by the turmoil in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Iran is in a powerful regional position and its co-operation and positive influence are needed to douse the many fires currently alight.

"Were Iran to feel seriously threatened by outside forces, it does have the potential to inflame the region yet further."

The Chatham House report was published the day after Iran delivered its formal response to a UN Security Council resolution offering a range of incentives if it agrees to end enrichment of uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear power stations or produce atomic warheads. The resolution holds the threat of sanctions against Iran if it refuses to do so.

Diplomats close to the discussions said that the Iranian response, as expected, was neither a "yes" or "no" answer. Instead, Iran has proposed further talks, without explicitly rejecting the UN demands.

Although President Bush has said that he intends to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, he has repeatedly said that no option is off the table, including that of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

On that score, the Chatham House analysis will make uncomfortable reading for White House planners.

"If the US were to attack Iran, then it would do so knowing that its forces in Iraq would be at an even greater risk than they currently are. Any US attack against Tehran would expose the US presence in Iraq to retaliatory destabilising interventions by Tehran," the report says.

"Washington's biggest security headache, as it considers whether to embark upon an assault against the Islamic Republic, is neither Iran's ability to fight in the airspace, nor even in the streets of its border towns (if the US were indeed to surprise most analysts and attempt a land invasion). The greatest threat to the US is Iran's ability to further destabilise the already chaotic public spaces of Iraq."

The report adds: "The great problem facing the US is that Iran has superseded it as the most influential power in Iraq. This influence has a variety of forms but all can be turned against the US presence in Iraq with relative ease, and almost certainly would heighten US casualties to the point where a continued presence might not be tenable."

Such a destabilisation, the analysts say, would have profound implications for the British contingent serving in Basra, Iraq's southern oil capital, where there is a "turf war" between Shia Muslim parties and militias, backed by Iran.

Chatham House says that both the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the former exile group founded in Tehran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war, and the Iranian-trained Badr Army are making "considerable political gains" in Basra.

SCIRI, it says, backs an expansive "Region of the Centre and the South", a kind of super-province including Basra and the two Shia Muslim holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

"This scenario is probably of most interest to the geopolitically-savvy Iranians, and SCIRI's increasing prominence almost certainly comes hand in hand with enhanced Iranian support," the report says.

"From the perspective of Iran, SCIRI is also the most "controllable" of the Iraqi Shia parties, especially when compared with the Sadr Movement, or Fadilah. Maintaining influence in Iran's backyard of southern Iraq is of paramount importance to Tehran."

August 15, 2006

Iran, Indonesia agree to promote energy cooperation

Source: People's Daily, Online, China

Excerpts:

Iranian Minister of Petroleum Seyed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh has said Iran and Indonesia agreed to promote energy cooperation in various fields, the local daily "Iran News" reported on Monday.

The Indonesian delegation had declared readiness of Indonesian government to take part in oil, petrochemical and exploration projects as well as information technology plans implemented by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Hamaneh told reporters.

He also noted that Indonesia had called on Iran for supply of needed chemical fertilizer to Indonesia.

"In view of superior situation of Pars Special Economic Energy Zone in Assaluyeh, the Indonesian side is interested in investment in production of chemical fertilizer in Assaluyeh," Hameneh was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, Hamaneh noted that Iran had taken part in a joint venture for building refinery in Indonesia and the Indonesian side also had expressed its interest in building gas condensate refinery in Iran, the report said.

Both Iran and Indonesia are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Turkey to Seek Oil in Iran

Source: Zaman Daily Newspaper, Online, Istanbul

Excerpts:

With recent energy issues on Turkey’s agenda, a new link is being forged in the Turkish-Iranian chain of energy cooperation.

In a bid from Iran to bypass Russia and access the European natural gas market via Turkey, Iran appears ready to allow Turkey to search for oil in the country in return.

Turkey is also operating oil fields in brother countries Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

TPAO (Turkey's state-owned petroleum company) has the authorization to search for oil in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

During today’s talks, TPAO, which specializes in international oil exploration, will ask permission from Iran to rent potential oil fields and conduct feasibility studies.

Iranian authorities will reportedly focus on strengthening their border compressor stations as well as the transfer of natural gas to Europe via Turkey.

As tension between Russia and Ukraine continues, the Turkish Ministry of Energy intensified its contacts with alternative oil-supplier Iran to prevent future shortages.

In addition to the new agreements, Turkey wants to renew current mutual agreements in order to allow Iran to open to Europe via Turkey.

Another important issue on Ankara’s agenda is the Tehran administration committing to a price discount and guarantee of supply.

Iranian natural gas supplied to Turkey fell by nearly one third in winter 2005.

August 14, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Autobiography

Source: President Ahmadinejad's blog

autobiography 2006/8/11

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

Oh Almighty God, please, we beg you to send us our Guardian- who You have promised us- soon and appoint us as His close companions.

Ahmadinejad-pic.jpgDuring the era that nobility was a prestige and living in a city was perfection, I was born in a poor family in a remote village of Garmsar-approximately 90 kilometer east of Tehran. I was born fifteen years after Iran was invaded by foreign forces — in August of 1940 — and the time that another puppet, named mohammad Reza — the son of Reza Mirpange- was set as a monarch in Iran. Since the extinct shah — Mohammad Reza — was supposed to take and enter Iran into western civilization slavishly, so many schemes were implemented that Iran becomes another market for the western ceremonial goods without any progress in the scientific field. Our Islamic culture would not allow such an infestation, and this was an impediment in front of shah and his foreign masters’ way. Thus, they decided to make this noble and tenacious culture weak gradually that Iran be attached strongly to the west as far as its economy, politics, and culture was concern. After the implementation of this policy and the unreal and outward of upswing, the villagers began to rush to the cities. Upon the enforcement of the land reform, the status of the villages became worst than the past and villagers for earning some breadcrumbs, they were deceived by the dazzling look and the misleading features of the cities and became suburban and lived in ghettos. My family was also suffered in the village as others. After my birth -the fourth one in the family- my family was under more pressures. My father had finished 6 grade of elementary school. He was a hard-bitten toiler blacksmith, a pious man who regularly participated in different religious programs. Even though never the dazzling look of the world was appealing to him, but the pressure of the life caused that he decided to migrate to Tehran when I was one year old. We chose to live in south central part of Tehran where is called Pamenar.
* * *

My father used to buy newspaper all the time. I remember one day, when I was in first grade, by looking through a newspaper — with the help of the adults in our house- I read the news of the capitulation passage by the shah’s so called —parliament.— Even though I did not understand the meaning of that issue at that time, but due to the protests and the objections of the religious schools of thoughts with the leadership of Imam Khomeini -Almighty God bless his soul- and the relentless reaction of the extinct shah, I realized that Mohammad Reza attempted to add another page to his vicious case history which was the humiliation and indignity of the Iranian people versus Americans. That was the year that the extinct shah slaughtered many followers of Imam Khomeini.

Imam Khomeini was released from prison. I never forget Imam Khomeini’s speeches during those years which was very persuasive and appealing. You would hear the strong faith to Almighty God in his orations. He invited the people to pure Islam. His message was invitation to the belief of monotheism- Unity and Oneness of God- and also justice, elimination of oppression, injustice and sedition in the world. He was courageous and had a valiant heart. He spoke firmly and securely. His orations were simple and honest. The people accepted his guidance sincerely. Due to these characteristics, he was a beloved leader for every individuals-young or elderly. Of course he was a disgrace for shah’s regime and his Americans masters. Notably, even among his enemies, he was respected with a special honor.
* * *

Eventually, the existence of Imam Khomeini was unbearable for the extinct shah and he could not tolerate him any more. Since they knew if they kill him-as they did a great number of his followers- the bloody uprising can not be controlled. Consequently they decided to exile him in order to separate the leader from his followers and to restrain the revolution which was occurring. They send him into exile overnight and his exile lasted 14 years. While Imam Khomeini was in exile, I became more familiar with his ideas, thoughts and philosophy through his companions and disciples in different classes and meetings. The more I became familiar with his thoughts and philosophy, the more affection I had for that divine leader and his separation and absence was intolerable for me. Although the enemies of the Iranian Muslims separated their leader from them, but always he was in people’s hearts and was more close to them than ever.
* * *

When I used to go to high school, shah celebrated the 2500 years of monarchy of Iran. Those years, poverty among the oppressed people of Iran was escalated and doubled. The imposition of the cost and the expenditure of these festivals and ceremonies and also the crapulence of shah’s debauched clan and their foreign companies, broke the people’s back. All necessary materials and supplies of these illegitimate functions were brought to Iran from Europe by the exclusive and specific airplanes. Probably one can claim that the disgraceful festivals of the 2500 years of kingdom in Iran -which was arranged by the traitorous shah- were the most expensive festivals in the history of the civilized human.

Anyway, in this situation, my father’s sledgehammer and anvil could not cover my family’s necessary expenses. Thus, I had to start working in a shop- that made certain parts for cooling system of buildings- to make some money to cover a portion of my family’s expenses and also my educational costs. Even though I was very playful those days, but was aware of my school & education. I was a distinguished student. From that time, I was interested and attached to teaching. I used to teach my friends and others in their houses. The last year of my high school, I prepared myself for university admission test-conquer. And later on that year, I took the test. Although I had nose bleeding during the test, but I became 132nd student among over 400 thousand participants. I was admitted for civil engineering major in one of the technical universities in Tehran. That was three years before the revolution. Even though the revolution was taking place and I was involved in certain activities against the illegitimate regime of the monarch in Iran-the mercenary & puppet of U.S. & Britain- but I was aware of my education and did not give it up. * * *

In order to stop the university students from joining the revolution, the traitorous shah and his clan tried to abolish Islamic belief and revolutionary motives among students, by propagating immorality, promiscuity, and perversion in universities in Iran. Although a small number of students fell into their traps, but in general, university converted to a base for demonstration against shah’s regime. The people’s faith and devotion to Islam was the main reason that they became ready to face bloodthirsty shah with his brutal and savage torture and encounter his death squad.
* * *

Imam Khomeini after being in exile in Iraq and elsewhere- came back to Iran. The manner is which Imam Khomeini was warmly welcomed on his return after fifteen years of exile by Iranian nation will always be remembered in the records of history. Whole Iran poured out in the streets to welcome Imam. The eyes of those watching Iran from the outside world were dazzled to see this great event and they were helpless to understand and come up with an explanation for what they saw.

The Islamic Revolution of the nation of Iran achieved victory after several years of severe hardships, brave perseverance and sacrifices of thousands of martyrs to the unbelievable astonishment of political analysts of East and West and right in front of the watchful eyes of Intelligence apparatuses of the great World powers at that time. Our Revolution was unique in its own kind. The whole Iranian nation with empty hands and only relying on the divine weapon of faith and under the leadership of an 80 years old man, was able to give a crushing defeat to the mercenary of USA, the Shah (King) of Iran and disclose the real disgraceful face of his powerful supporters to the countries of the region and the whole world.
* * *

Although, right at the beginning of the movement of Imam Khomeini, the type of Government Imam was seeking to establish was known to everybody, however, Imam repeatedly laid great emphasis that everyone’s opinion should be taken into consideration (by holding a referendum) for the establishment of the type of new government in Iran. This he did so as to show right at the outset that it is with the wishes of the nation as well as in accordance with the principles of Islam, that an Islamic Government is established. Although, there was absolutely no need of a referendum, but Imam with his wise foresight, proved his point of view to everyone and left no place for those who wished to seek alternatives. This action of Imam and vehement participation and positive reply to the establishment of Islamic Republic by the Iranian nation, caused disappointment of some of the political groups that were affiliated to great world powers. These terrorist groups with the support and directions from arrogant powers, the leader of them being USA at that time, started massacring innocent people as well as the leading figures of the Islamic Revolution. They, like their supporting masters, thought that they can undermine and collapse the new government right in its beginning. But, the nation of Iran was not ready to give this precious and great Revolution from their hands so easily. They stood firmly and with great difficulties, remained loyal to Revolution and protected it at all costs. They were ultimately able to force these terrorist groups out of their own country. Although these terrorist groups are still under the protection and shameful support of Great Satan USA, however, the slap that these groups have received from the brave nation of Iran will never be forgotten by them.

The global arrogance had determined to defeat the Islamic Revolution of Iran at all costs. The reason was that they were afraid that this revolution will become a model and ideal path for other nations in the region and in the world. On the other they also wished to get back their lost prestige. Thus, they, in addition to supporting daily terrorist activities inside Iran, they also supported regime of Saddam to attack Iran and start the imposed war. The analysis of corrupt politicians at that time was that Iranian revolution was in its beginning and the government was not fully established and was not powerful enough to survive. The security apparatus of state, they thought, was not fully functional and was weak and didn’t have enough weaponry and experience. And, on the other side was Saddam, whatever he wanted, they provided him, and they thought that he will win the war on Iran. Saddam, intoxicated with power and while receiving all the economic, military and intelligence support that USA and other Western countries provided him, proudly announced that he will capture Tehran within 3 days. The war that was imposed on Iran, continued for more than 8 years instead of 3 days and ultimately in the end, not even an inch of Iranian land reach the hands of Saddam and his supporters.

During these 8 years, Saddam fought with us and also with his own people. He bombarded our cities with chemical weapons provided by the Western powers and also Iraqi villages and towns. During the whole period of war, while Saddam was bombarding our cities, Islamic Republic of Iran, obeying the laws of Islam and humanitarian principles, never attacked cities and limited the war with the army of Iraq in the battlefield. It is sad, that even this humane attitude of Islamic Republic didn’t impress those who at world stage watched the war at that time.
* * *

At the beginning of war, I was 25 years of age. My mother and wife and all the mothers and wives of the Iranian nation, whose youths and their wives participated in war and defended their country, patiently trained and educated the next generation, which is brave, resisting and faithful. Today’s brave and strong youths are the fruits of hardships and untiring efforts of the days of past.

The sacred defense in the universities was related to teaching human values. Side by side, the experience of life and death during war made this life like a heaven on earth and hereafter, such that what was said and heard about it and carried out at that time, was truly godly.

Brotherhood, faithfulness, seriousness and loving hard work, spirituality and worship, eagerness and happiness to do good, sacrifice and bravery, all these values have proved to us time and again that this world and hereafter are not opposite to each other, rather they both are completely in harmony with each other. At that time, martyrdom was the only wish of our defending fighters.

In the year 1988, one year before the demise of Imam Khomeini, may peace of God be upon him, the United Nations Security Council passed the resolution to stop the war and Imam unwillingly accepted it and announced that this acceptance on his part is like drinking poison. The war ended and in a situation when all the international organizations strived very hard to distort and hide the facts that Saddam was the aggressor and that the arrogant powers had fully supported him. For those who were not aware of the close working of these international organizations and arrogant powers of the world, this indifference to and distortion and hiding of the facts was a very shocking experience.
* * *

I will continue this topic later on as it took long in the beginning. From now onwards, I will try to make it shorter and simpler.

With hope in God, I intend to wholeheartedly complete my talk in future with allotted fifteen minutes.

Iraqi oil minister says production back at 2.5 million barrels a day

Source: MarketWatch.com

TEHRAN (MarketWatch) -- Iraq's crude oil production is back at 2.5 million barrels a day after the pipeline that takes oil to Turkey was repaired, Iraq's Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani told the Iranian daily Sharq Monday.

The minister also said he believed the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will maintain their current output ceiling at its next meeting In September.

"The pipeline was recommissioned two days ago and with that Iraq's production rose to 2.5 million b/d," Shahristani said. The pipeline to Turkey, a popular sabotage target, has a capacity of 400,000 b/d.

Shahristani said plans are under way to raise Iraq's oil production to between 2.9 million and 3 million b/d by the end of the current year, and raise it by 500,000 b/d annually by 2010.

"Therefore, Iraq's oil production will rise to 4.5 million b/d by the end of the current (Iraqi) government in 2010," Shahristani said.

The surge in Iraq's production will be realized through the utilization of domestic resources and without any foreign involvement, he said. Any hike in the country's national oil production using foreign oil companies will raise production above and over the projected output.

"If the agreements with international oil companies on the development of oil fields are signed, Iraq's oil production will rise to 6 to 8 million b/d," Shahristani said, without giving any timeframe for this target.

He also said agreements being negotiated with foreign oil companies will be by no means limited to U.S. companies, and Iraq will take the advantage of such European energy firms as BP PLC (BP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA), Total SA (TOT) and firms from China.

As to what OPEC plans to do with its output at its September 11 meeting in Vienna, Shahristani said: "We are currently deliberating with one another, but I am of the opinion that the current production ceiling be maintained."

Shahristani arrived in Tehran on Friday on a four-day official visit to follow up on the agreements between the two countries in the oil sector. The two countries are to explore the possibility of developing jointly their shared oil fields and a technical group was set up to advise on that.

On the likelihood of U.S. opposition to close cooperation with Iran in the vital oil industry, Shahristani said Baghdad decides on the basis of maximizing its own interests.

It was also agreed Iran would receive 100,000 b/d of Iraqi oil to refine at Abadan and Kermanshah refineries, of which Iraq would receive 2 million liters of kerosene among other derivatives.

Holocaust cartoon fair opens in Iran

Quote of the Day

Source: Agence France-Presse

"Though we do not deny that fact that Jews were killed in the (second world) war, why should the Palestinians pay for it?" ~Masoud Shojai, head of Iran's "Iran Cartoon" Association and fair organizer

He added that around 1,100 cartoons were submitted by participants from more than 60 countries and that more than 200 are on show.

Shojai did not elaborate on the source of the prize money, but emphasized that it did not come from any governmental body.

The fair is being staged by Iran Cartoon and the country's largest selling newspaper Hamshahri newspaper, which is published by Tehran's conservative municipality.

The contest was announced in February in a tit-for-tat move after caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed were first printed in Denmark and then picked up and published worldwide, enraging Muslims.

August 09, 2006

Strait of Hormuz - Iran & United Arab Emirates/Oman

August 03, 2006

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei praises Hezbollah

It doesn't look like Arab support for Hezbollah's struggle against Israel is going to dry up anytime soon. Quite the contrary, it appears that Israel's airstrikes and incursions into Lebanon have only strengthened Hezbollah's political and, most likely, military support.

Source: eitb24.com, Basque Radio and Television

Excerpts:

Khamenei criticised the US for supporting Israel's evil acts in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against them. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance," he said.

"The only way to succeed is to continue resistance against the occupier regime (Israel)," said Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state in Iran and who dominates the country's policy on the Middle East conflict. "Iran will stand by ... the brave Lebanese nation and the combatant Palestinian nation."

Khamenei criticised the United States for supporting Israel's "evil acts" in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against Israel. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance more than before in the Islamic world," Khamenei said.

An influential hardline cleric on Tuesday called on Muslim nations to arm Lebanese Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.

Iran warns of $200 oil if US pursues sanctions

Source: Washington Post

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Global oil prices could hit $200 per barrel if the United States pursues sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development program, an Iranian official told Venezuelan state TV on Thursday.

Iran's Foreign Relations Vice Minister Manuchehr Mohammadi said, "The first consequence of these sanctions would be an increase in the price of oil to around $200 per barrel."

August 01, 2006

No 'automatic' sanctions against Iran: Russia

Source: Iran Mania

Russia will clearly block any attempts at 'automatic' sanctions against Iran for refusing the package of incentives offered in exchange for discontinuation of their Uranium enrichment program. Since they have veto power in the Security Council, military action is out of the question.

Some excerpts:

LONDON, August 1 (IranMania) - A UN Security Council demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment does not carry the "automatic" threat of sanctions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said Tuesday, AFP reported.

"Of course, no one is going to look at any use of force," he added.

"We are interested in a political resolution of the problem," he said.

If Iran does not suspend its nuclear work, the council would consider adopting "appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which could be economic and political sanctions.

July 31, 2006

Iran's UN Ambassador rejects UN Security Council resolution and reminds the US of their part in Saddam's use of chemical weapons in 1980

Iran's UN Ambassador takes this opportunity to point out that Iranian people were the only victims of a chemical weapons attack in recent history at the hands of a US-supplied/backed Saddam Hussein...

Source: Washington Post

Iran says Security Council demand illegal

"Iran's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security and therefore dealing with this issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility," Zarif told the council.

...

Iranians were not interested in developing nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction, he said, recalling a chemical attack staged by then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on the Iranian people in 1980.

"As the only victims of the use of weapons of mass destruction in recent history, they reject the development and use of all these inhuman weapons on ideological as well as strategic grounds," Zarif said

July 30, 2006

Anti-US countries forge warm ties in effort to thwart American Imperialism

Source: Iran cements warm ties to Venezuela

Excerpts:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez enveloped his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a bear hug on Sunday, as the two men planned to underscore their anti-U.S. rhetoric with a series of investment deals.

"If the US empire succeeds in establishing its dominance, there will be no future for humanity. Therefore, we should save humanity and end the American empire," Chavez told a crowd at the University of Tehran.

Chavez also lambasted Israel, arch-enemy of Iran, for its offensive against Lebanon as "both fascism and terrorism". This chimed with the tone of Iran's president who has compared Israel's conduct to that of Adolf Hitler.

Closer Ties Between Saudi Arabia and Iran

Source: Fars News Agency

While the US tries to isolate Iran, Israel's attacks on Lebanon are strengthening ties across the Islamic world.

Saudi King Malik Abdullah called Mohammad Reza Nouri Shahroudi (advisor to Iran's Expediency Council for International Affairs) 'an asset for Iran and the world of Islam' and praised the progress the two countries have made strengthening their ties during previous Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meetings.

Abdullah also called for vigilance in thwarting the 'secret hands' that 'intend to sow discord among Muslims and agitate religious disputes and tribalism.'

"Shahroudi, who handed over Rafsanjani's written message to King Abdullah, stressed the importance of more consultation on issues of world of Islam between the two countries and called for expansion of mutual friendly ties in all fields."

He added, "The Islamic Republic of Iran calls for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the Zionist regime's attacks on the defenseless Palestinian and Lebanese people."

King Abdullah II slams Israel

Source: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1975489,00.html


"This criminal aggression is a flagrant violation of international laws," the Jordanian monarch said in a statement released by the royal court..."This is a horrible crime committed by the Israeli forces," the king said.

...

Amman - Jordan's King Abdullah II on Sunday denounced Israel's deadly air raid on the south Lebanese village of Qana that killed at least 51 people, and appealed for a quick solution to the crisis.

"This criminal aggression is a flagrant violation of international laws," the Jordanian monarch said in a statement released by the royal court.

At least 51 people, including 22 children, were killed in blistering Israeli air raids on the village of Qana at dawn, officials in the region said.

"This is a horrible crime committed by the Israeli forces," the king said.

He urged the "international community to assume its responsibilities and find a quick solution to the crisis and suffering of the Lebanese people," the statement added.

July 28, 2006

UN Security Council accord on Iran Nuclear Issue

Basically, Russia and China have blocked the US attempt to bring sanctions against Iran, at least until the end of August. Their energy contracts/deals with Iran are far more important in this era of flat petroleum production:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

UNITED NATIONS - The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council reached a deal Friday on a resolution that would give Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
...
Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text is weaker than earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of sanctions immediate. The draft now essentially requires the council to hold further discussions before it considers sanctions.

Quote from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

In regard to the escalting conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon:

"If the option of peace fails as a result of Israeli arrogance, then the only option remaining will be war, and God alone knows what the region would witness in a conflict that would spare no one."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_arab_response

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Hugo Chavez

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072800050.html
TEHRAN (Reuters) - What does one clamorous anti-U.S. president give another for his birthday?

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lined up a medal and some oil investment deals for Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, but there could always be a surprise party when these two unpredictable orators team up.

Chavez, due in Iran on Friday, his 52nd birthday, will be celebrating among friends. Caracas is one of Tehran's closest allies and Iranian investors are pouring money into oil projects, construction and tractor plants in the Andean state.
...
Venezuela's delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency has staunchly backed Iran's right to produce enriched uranium, decrying U.S. accusations that Tehran's nuclear scientists want to make bombs rather than power stations.
...
Iranian firms have invested $1 billion in Venezuelan ventures to date, and the industry ministry says it hopes to expand this to $9 billion in the coming years.

Although ties are warm, diplomats and analysts say Chavez knows there are limits to his relations with Iran because of his dependence on the United States as a market for his oil.

While commercial deals are acceptable, arms contracts would probably be seen as too inflammatory, they say. Venezuela is looking mainly to Russia for military hardware.

Analysts also note that Venezuela will never be a foreign policy priority for Iran, whose interests are primarily Islamic.

"There's no natural affinity because Iran's Islamist leaders have always held "Godless" communists and socialists in contempt and look down at the lax social restrictions in Latin America," said Karim Sadjadpour, Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group.

"The only common bond is a shared enmity toward the United States," he added.

July 26, 2006

Map of the Middle East

License Info

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2