Monday, January 30, 2006

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Seven: What are the Alternative Rationales for an Attack on Iran?

Updated March 7th 2006.
This work has proposed that a war against iran will be launched primarily for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine rather than for the protection of america’s national security or the promotion of america’s national interests – even if america refuses to allow the jews-only state to become involved in an attack on iran. However, there are a range of alternative explanations for a war against iran. This chapter seeks to assess the viability of these explanations.

The Protection of America’s Oil Interests.
There are many commentators, many of them on the left - some of whom are zionists pretending to be jews - who insisted that america invaded iraq to protect its oil supplies. There are two main flaws in this thesis.

Perhaps the most obvious flaws is that american oil companies were reluctant to support the war. "The US war in Iraq and Afghanistan reversed the picture creating a very hostile environment, increasing dangers of destructive attacks, insecurity of Western personnel, and augmenting the power of OPEC against the major private US companies. Only a very few oil-related companies can be said to have benefited from the war – Haliburton, for example - most of which had direct ties to Vice President Cheney. They are the exception that proves the rule. The oil industry as an investor, producer and seller have not really benefited from the war. Even after the colonial occupation of Iraq, (and even after the illegal privatization of Iraq’s state oil companies) the predominant sentiment among oil companies is at best ambivalent: while future opportunities may have increased so have the present threats to supply and transport." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ January 2005); "The hypothesis that "oil" and the US petroleum multinationals were the main force behind the Iraq war fails every empirical test. If we examine the policy statements of the major oil companies and their public spokespeople in the five years leading up to the war we find no systematic political and propaganda campaign in favor of war. One looks in vain through all the major financial and specialized petroleum journals for evidence of organized pro-war politics. The reason is that the major oil companies were doing quite well with the status quo: profits and prices were reasonably high, investments were relatively secure, anti-imperialist sentiment was extensive but not intense and, most of all, opportunities for important new investments were opening in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and possibly (via third parties) in Iraq." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ January 2005).

Secondly, it was obvious to anyone with a little common sense that it was politically and militarily impossible for america to invade iraq in order to protect its oil supplies because it’s like sending in a Bull to protect the delicate wares on sale in a china shop. The efforts that america has made to control and exploit iraq’s oil reserves have failed spectacularly - oil exports are down, investment in the oil industry is down, and the iraqi oil industry remains under national control. "I won't reiterate the case for believing that the main motive for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was rooted in American support for Israel. Suffice to say here that the other ostensible reasons for such a misdirected effort in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks – oil, Iraq's links to al-Qaeda, "weapons of mass destruction" – all dissipated rather rapidly after the president declared "mission accomplished."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph’ January 6, 2006); "Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can have the very opposite effect: It can diminish – rather than enhance – America's access to foreign oil. (Michael T. Klare ‘More Blood, Less Oil’ September 22, 2005); "Guerrilla attacks and sabotage cost the Iraqi petroleum industry $6.25 billion in lost revenues in 2005. They launched 186 assaults on petroleum facilities, killing 47 engineers & technicians & workers, along with 100 police guarding pipelines and other installations. The guerrillas directed most of the sabotage and attacks at the northern facilities centered at Kirkuk. They took offline some 400,000 barrels a day. Iraq only produced an average of 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005, mostly from the southern Rumaila fields and exported through the southern port of Basra. This amount was down from 2.8 million barrels a day before the 2003 Bush invasion of the country. (The US press continues to give the average production in 2005 as "about 2 million" barrels a day, magically adding an imaginary 200,000 barrels a day to the real average. At $65 a barrel, that is $13 million at day! I'd suggest they stop rounding up in this case.)." (Juan Cole ‘20 Dead in Bombings, Gunfights Including GI’ February 19, 2006).

The oil thesis for a war against iraq is plainly bogus and, correspondingly, has no merit as regards america’s proposed attack on iran. Unfortunately, even the spectacular failure of america’s invasion of iraq does not seem to have convinced the left wing ideological proponents of the oil thesis that they were wrong and that they are thus likely to be wrong about an american attack on iran. If the zogs believe they can invade iran, protect the country’s oil industry, and increase the export of iranian fossil fuels, then they have learnt nothing from the fiasco of their invasion of iraq. Only a nuclear attack on iran and the de facto carve up of the country is likely to succeed in such objectives - and even this is far from being a certainty.

It has to be asked why america needed to secure its oil supplies when oil producing countries around the world are falling over themselves to sell their oil to america? The best way for america to protect its oil supplies and keep the price of oil low is to allow oil producing nations to get on with the job of exporting oil. "As for oil, contrary to conventional wisdom, Persian Gulf countries need to sell oil more than the United States needs to buy it. Oil makes up the following percentage of the exports of Gulf nations: Iraq, 90 percent or more; Saudi Arabia, 90–95 percent; Kuwait, 90–95 percent; Iran, 80 percent; Oman, 75 percent; United Arab Emirates, 70 percent; Bahrain, 65 percent;112 and Qatar, 75–80 percent.113 Most Gulf states have little else to export. In contrast, oil makes up only approximately 7 percent of U.S. imports.114" (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ January 2005).

Left wing ideologists cannot see america as anything else than an imperial power which uses its military to protect the resources the country needs to increase its prosperity. They are prevented from seeing any alternative by zionists posing as left wingers whose sole concern is to keep the left from understanding that america is not an imperial power but a puppet regime controlled by the jews-only state in palestine.

The Dollar as a Global Currency.
Another explanation proffered for an american attack on iran is to protect the dollar’s status as the world’s global currency. Like the oil thesis highlighted above this thesis is promoted primarily by left wingers who are ideological incontinent about the role of jewish power in manipulating american politics and american foreign policy for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine.

The economic benefits that accrue to america for establishing the dollar as the world’s global currency are immense. After the second world war, the dollar was backed up by gold. In 1971 the nixon administration decided it was no longer going to pay gold to refund dollars. The dollar was desperately in need of some means to guarantee its value. The solution was to use oil to back up the value of the dollar. "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." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006). Since the early 1970s, all oil around the world has been sold on two oil exchanges both of which require buyers and sellers to carry out transactions in dollars.

This monopoly of the dollar on oil transactions requires all countries importing oil to keep a large cache of dollars in their central banks. These reserves can be acquired either by exporting goods to america or by governments buying american government bonds, so called T bonds. As a consequence, the american government has had to print dollars not to meet its own domestic needs but to enable countries to buy oil on the world’s oil markets. America sells these dollars, and thus acquires vast sums of foreign currencies, without having to produce any goods or services. Conversely, it then uses these currencies to buy goods and services which, in effect, it gets for free –the sole cost incurred being the printing of dollar bills. "In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ November 03 2005).

The use of the dollar as the currency for all oil transactions has led to the situation where there are now more dollars outside america than there are inside. It also means that america’s vast expenditure on the country’s military forces is almost entirely financed by the rest of the world which needs dollars for oil transactions. "Today, US war-making capability is dependent on the rest of the world to finance it." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ February 11th 2006). It might seem absurd for the world to pay for america’s bloated military forces and yet, as ron paul has argued, "As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ February 15, 2006). America can keep spending colossal sums of money on its military forces, and even cut domestic taxes, because it can fund this expenditure by selling dollars to countries which need to import oil. As long as countries are willing to buy dollars then america can keep boosting its military power.

The dollars’ role as a national and global currency leads to a paradox. On the one hand, the more dollars that america prints for the oil trade, the more it devalues the dollar. On the other hand, the greater the consumption of oil, the greater the demand for dollars, the greater the over-valuation of the dollar. The actual value of the dollar is determined by the push and pull of demand and supply - although this occurs in a market which is rigged in favour of the dollar. At present, the continually increasing demand for oil has led to a continually increasing demand for dollars which has meant the dollar has become hugely overvalued. Even though during bush’s reign its value has fallen by 40%, it is believed the dollar is still considerably overvalued. However, if all countries around the world suddenly tried to cash in their dollars by buying american goods or services the value of the dollar would rocket.

For the last couple of years, iran has been planning to set up its own oil exchange in march 2006 in which oil will be bought and sold in euros. It is predicted this will cause a fall in the demand for dollars which will have an adverse effect on the value of the dollar and the american economy. "The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. In 2005-2006, The Tehran government developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ October 27th 2004); "Iran's future oil and natural gas wealth foreshadow its growth into a regional competitor to Israel as well as an energy-independent powerhouse. Their stated intention to sell resources via their own, homegrown bourse, is a direct threat to the existing economic system. It would greatly increase trade in petro-euros and send the dollar into a downward spiral. The importance of this cannot be overstated. The heart-and-soul of the empire is the Greenback; that flaccid, debt-ridden hoax that props-up the entire rickety structure of state-terror. The $8 trillion dollars of accumulated debt that underwrites the greenback requires that the world continue to buy oil in dollars. The transition from dollars to petro-euros is a direct assault on a system that forces the lavish debt of the wealthiest nations onto the shoulders of the world's poorest people." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ October 9th 2005).

It is in iran’s financial interests to trade its oil in euros rather than dollars. Firstly, because the dollar is slipping in value against the euro. "The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ November 03 2005). And, secondly, because iran sells more oil to europe than america so it is just incurring additional expenses selling oil in dollars before it reaches europe. "From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petro-euro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data). …" (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ October 27th 2004); "From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ November 03 2005). Thirdly, by allowing any oil to be sold in euros it could attract business away from the oil exchanges in london and new york.

It should be pointed out that the iranians are not necessarily trying to hurt america by setting up their own oil bourse and selling oil in euros – they are only promoting their own national interests. What is more, the iranians are not doing anything illegal or even anything that will challenge the global capitalist system. On the contrary, the islamic democracy is boosting global capitalism by setting up a capitalist institution so that capitalists around the world can buy or sell oil for profit.

In order to evaluate the alleged threat to america’s dollar supremacy posed by iran’s establishment of an oil bourse, it is necessary to highlight the main assumptions of the petro-dollar hypothesis.

Firstly, the iranian oil bourse will supposedly open in march 2006. "the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006).

Secondly, the iranians are proposing to sell not only their own oil in euros but oil from any country. "the Iranian Oil Bourse .. will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006).

Thirdly, the success of the iranian oil bourse depends on the number of buyers and sellers it attracts and the amount of oil traded. Common sense suggests there are four main scenarios as to what could happen. At one extreme, nobody will trade on the bourse and it will collapse soon after it opens. This will pose no threat to the dollars’ role as a global currency. The next scenario is that the iranian bourse will start off slowly and gradually find a niche within the global oil market. Once again this will mean it will not pose any threat to the dollar’s supremacy. The third scenario is that the bourse will attract increasing numbers of traders who will bring about a protracted, long term collapse in the dollar. Finally, at the other extreme, the bourse will attract all the world’s oil traders and thus become an instant and overwhelming success bringing about the instant collapse of the dollar. Virtually all the left wing ideologists promoting the oil bourse as the main cause of an american attack on iran believe this is the most realistic scenario. "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." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006). "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." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006); "the proposed "euro-based" bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ January 31, 2006); "An even partial loss of the U.S. dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency for global energy trading would, as Petrov suggests, lead to a sharp decline in its value and an ensuing acceleration of inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, with unpleasant consequences." (Michael Keefer ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran’ February 10, 2006); "A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ Aug 26, 2005). What we are dealing with here is vast amounts of leftie wishful thinking totally divorced from the real world.

Fourthly, given that iran’s bourse could be an instant success, the americans have no option but to attack iran before the bourse opens in march 2006, "For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ January 31, 2006); "Whatever the cost, the attack seems likely to be carried out sometime on or before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse. The new exchange which directly challenges the continued dominance of the greenback in the oil trade (the largest commodity traded in the world) poses an "existential threat" to the well-being of western financial institutions and elites." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? January 13, 2006); "If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in March and openly compete with the US’s monopoly on trading oil in petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will disappear beneath the waves." (Mike Whitney ‘Why Russia caved-in on Iran’ February 4, 2006); "It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros - a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ February 15th 2006); "The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020. The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran: - on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ; - on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward. These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system." (The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020 ‘Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis’ February 25 2006).

Finally, it is deemed the threat posed by the iranian bourse to american interests is more fundamental than a similar proposal adopted by saddam hussein. Whilst saddam sold only iraqi oil in euros, the iranians are proposing to sell any oil in euros - thereby opening up the prospect of all oil being traded on the bourse. "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." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ January 17th 2006).

A number of radical economists, and left/right wing anti-war commentators, believe the iranian bourse will be an instant success which will bring about the instant collapse of the dollar so america will have to invade iran before march 2006. A number of criticisms can be made of this analysis.

Firstly, whilst commentators talk as if iran’s oil bourse will definitely be established in march 2006, iran is nowhere near to opening the doors of its new exchange. One of the architects involved in setting up the bourse is amused at the prospect that he is about to bring down the global economy, "It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros." (Chris Cook ‘What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about’ Jan 21, 2006). He points out the difficulties he’s experienced setting up the bourse. Firstly, the "turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy". Then, after the election in 2005 of the new iranian president, the three attempts to appoint a new oil minister. "Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December." Further delays followed because, "Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project." The iranians have not even decided on a marker for the oil to be sold. "The Iranians so far have not indicated whether they have come up with an oil marker - a euro-denominated oil pricing standard - like the dollar denominated West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ February 7th 2006).

Secondly, iran’s assumption in setting up an oil bourse is that it believes it has sufficient economic, political, and military, clout to defy american economic and political pressure in defence of the dollar. However, whether other countries are willing to defy, or are even capable of defying, the united states by participating in the iranian bourse is another matter.

Saudi arabia and kuwait are not going to use iran’s bourse for reasons which have been pointed out above.

The europeans would not dare to politically defy america even though the iranian oil bourse would be a massive economic boom for europe. "The Iranian Oil Bourse can count on two sharp arrows in its holster. It can - and probably will - lure European buyers with oil prices quoted in euros, saving them dollar transaction costs. And it can strike barter deals with oil-hungry giants like China and India who have a lot of products and commodities to offer." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ Aug 26, 2005). All the economic benefits that america enjoys from the dollar’s use as a global currency would accrue to europe. "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 ..." (Krassimir Petrov quoted in Joshua Frank ‘War with Iran: Of Nukes and Oil’ January 26, 2006). Europe would become richer enabling it to fund a powerful military force which would enable it to become a central political actor on the world stage. But, despite these significant economic, military, and political, benefits europe has no intention of challenging american global hegemony and has got in line behind america in demanding a war against iran. Perhaps this is because european governments are confident that the iranian oil bourse would not be a significant threat to the dollar.

Neither the russians nor the chinese are not likely to defy america either.

It ought to be pointed out that syria has decided to defy the united states and abandon the dollar. "Duraid Durgham, the head of state-owned Commercial Bank of Syria, said on Monday: "This is a precaution. We are talking about billions of dollars. Switching to the euro will help us avoid settlement problems in the United States. The move is also needed to avoid complications with our correspondent banks, which have expressed a preference to deal in euro under these circumstances." Most of the government's foreign currency flows goes through the Commercial Bank, whose US assets were frozen by Washington in 2004 as relations with Syria deteriorated. The latest official figures show Syria imported $6.7 billion goods in 2004 and exported $5.4 billion. Oil output is about 400,000 barrels a day." (Syria picks euros over dollars’ February 14th 2006). It is ironic that america’s warmongering against iran, supposedly to stop the establishment of its bourse, has so frightened syria it has pushed the syrian government into doing what america supposedly did not want. Syria would not have implemented such a policy if the american government hadn’t threatened to freeze its assets. The bush administration is its own worst enemy. At this rate it won’t be iran and the rest of the oil producing countries that bring down the dollar, it will be america itself. It should also be considered that one of the major fears of an oil bourse is that even if it cannot instantly bring down the dollar as the global currency, it will act as a slippery slope leading to the demise of the dollar – but syria’s policy change has not pushed the rest of the world onto a slippery slope.

Of the two extreme scenarios that could result from the establishment of an oil bourse the collapse of the iranian bourse is far more likely than the collapse of the dollar. If the iranian bourse does not attract any business it is no threat to the dollar, it is no threat to america, and it is not a justification for a war against iran. Given that america has the power to peacefully deter countries from trading on the iranian bourse, why would it need to go to war to prevent iranians from setting up their own oil exchange?

Thirdly, let’s assume that despite intense pressure from america, oil shortages on the world market become so acute that countries decide to buy iranian oil on the iranian bourse - but not non-iranian oil. The damage this could do to the dollar as the world’s global currency is minimal because iran exports only 5% of the world’s oil. "Iran holds a strong hand as the No 2 producer of crude behind Saudi Arabia, pumping 5% of the world's oil demand." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ Aug 26, 2005). What is more, the dollar is used for the sale not only of oil but all raw materials. "The permanent demand for dollar-denominated paper stems substantially from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ Aug 26, 2005). Let’s assume that the total trade in raw materials is roughly equal to the world trade in oil. This would mean that the impact on the dollar of iran selling all of its oil in euros would be half of 5%. In reality, given the $1 trillion global drugs industry which is also transacted in dollars, its impact would be even smaller. It is highly unlikely that such a marginal economic factor is going to bring about the downfall of the dollar. It has to be concluded that by itself, iran simply does not have the economic clout to bring down the dollar. The dollar could be brought down only by the concerted action of all oil importing countries but this is unlikely to happen because they are america’s allies.

Fourthly, the primary reason that countries will not attempt to defy america over the dollar’s global hegemony is because it is not in their economic interests to do so. The countries which could do most damage to the dollar by buying oil in euros are countries which have so many investments tied up in america they would be reluctant to do anything to trigger a devaluation of the dollar. "It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ February 15, 2006). Although it is in europe’s economic interests to replace the dollar with the euro as the currency for oil transactions, europe cannot back up their currency with a military force on the scale of america’s. In effect, europe is foregoing the possibility of vast economic benefits for the sake of political benefits deriving from falling into line with american policies.

Fifthly, the americans would not attack iran solely to stop the establishment of an oil bourse because the costs of such a war are likely to be vastly greater than any damage the bourse could inflict on the american economy. "The negative impact on the dollar will be far greater from the additional red ink necessary to finance an attack on Iran than from an oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ February 11th 2006).

Sixthly, america’s invasion of iraq has proved it cannot control iraqi oil. If it invades iran it is also unlikely to be able to control iranian oil. An attack on iran could lead to a dramatic increase in the price of oil which could push america and the rest of the world into a long term economic recession – that is, the very outcome america was hoping to avoid by invading iran.

Seventhly, there is one way, however, of determining the legitimacy of the petro-dollar hypothesis. One of the assumptions of this hypothesis is that the americans have to launch a war against iran before the bourse comes into operation to prevent an instant collapse of the american economy. It could be argued then that if america does not attack iran before the bourse opens then this would imply the bourse is not so much of a threat as its proponents suggest. The longer the bourse is allowed to operate before america launches a war against iran, the less likely it is that the war will have been launched because of the petro-dollar rationale.

Finally, in 2001 saddam started selling iraqi oil in euros. Radical and left wing commentators deemed this to be such a critical threat to the dollar, and thus to america’s economic survival, that america had to invade iraq. For example, "There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ February 15, 2006). But, as one of the main economic proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis has stated, "In economic terms, this (the iranian bourse) represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's .." So, if saddam’s insistence on selling iraqi oil in euros rather than dollars wasn’t as significant a threat to the supremacy of the dollar as the threat posed by the iranian bourse, then it could not have been a significant factor driving america to invade iraq. The petro-dollar hypothesis is supposed to justify america’s attacks on both iraq and iran. And yet, at the very least, it cannot explain america’s invasion of iraq.

Unfortunately, the petro-euro hypothesis is not merely a source of idle economic speculation. It poses a couple of serious political dangers.

Firstly, it could be used to provide america with a popular and seemingly legitimate excuse for a war against iran. The petro-dollar hypothesis was first raised by a couple of economists, william r. clark, and krassimir petrov. It was then, rather ironically, highlighted by an anti-war commentator, "The US has become the world's largest debtor, in hock to foreigners for one-fourth of our Gross Domestic Product. The ratio of US external debt (what we owe to foreigners) and US exports is approaching the crisis ratios of banana republics. It is inevitable: America's mounting debts will produce a crisis. The dollar's value will plummet, and US living standards will drop. Everything will become more expensive for Americans. The perilous condition of the dollar is one of the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. What keeps the overvalued dollar up is the fact that it is the currency in which the Middle East bills its oil. Every country has to purchase dollars in order to pay for its oil, and these purchases keep the dollar afloat. Just prior to the US invasion, sanctions on Iraqi oil had run their course and were about to be removed. Saddam Hussein intended to bill Iraqi oil in Euros, which could have started the abandonment of the dollar by the oil producing countries. Instead of fixing our economic problems, we started a war." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ September 29, 2004).

(Since roberts published his article he has changed his mind about the threat posed by iran’s oil bourse, "Will an Iranian oil bourse hurt the dollar? Not really. The dollar's value depends on the world's willingness to hold dollar denominated assets, not on the currency used to pay oil bills. If payments were not made in dollars, there could be a slight negative impact on the dollar from countries reducing their dollar cash balances and from the psychological shock of pricing oil in Euros (or some other currency). However, what really counts is what do the oil producers, for example, do with the currency that they are paid. If they are paid in dollars, but exchange the dollars for Euros or Yen and purchase equities or bonds or real estate in Europe and Japan, it doesn't help that oil is billed in dollars. Or if they are paid in Euros but exchange the Euros for dollars and purchase US assets, it doesn't hurt that the oil is billed in Euros." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ February 11th 2006).

The petro-dollar hypothesis was then picked up by a number of left wing, anti-war, commentators such as michel chossudovsky, mike whitney, wayne madsen, thierry meyssan, and michael keefer, who used it to explain why america had to attack iran. Recently john pilger has expressed his support for the hypothesis and acknowledged mike whitney’s influence on his views. "Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked." (John Pilger ‘The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon’ February 10th 2006). It has also been supported by anti-war members of the american congress such as

The petro-dollar hypothesis was also promoted by a number of right wing, anti-war, political commentators such as craig paul roberts, paul sheldon foote, ron paul, and heather wokusch – although craig paul roberts has since dramatically reversed his opinion about the issue.

The petro-dollar hypothesis has been highlighted almost exclusively by anti-war commentators whether on the left or the right. It is not an hypothesis which has been adopted by the bush administration or by the jewish lobby in america – primarily, it has to be suspected, because their criticisms of iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy have reaped such substantial political support. Why should they complicate their propaganda offensive against iran when it is currently reaping such substantial political rewards? In any case, right wing free marketeers can hardly say anything other than admire iran’s conversion to global capitalism through the establishment of its own oil bourse. Isn’t an oil bourse just a cast iron example of the free enterprise system in action – like iran’s development of nuclear power? It needs to be appreciated then that the bush administration is condemning iran not because of its threat to global capitalism but because of its military threat – a military threat to the jews-only state in palestine.

In february 2006, jerome r. corsi became the first right wing, pro-war, political commentator to promote the petro-dollar hypothesis to popularize the war against iran. He even acknowledged the left wing source of his ideas, "Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ February 3, 2006).

Corsi pointed out that, "Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically. The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ February 3, 2006). He expressed concern that iran’s challenge to the supremacy of the dollar will hurt america’s poor – as if america’s right wingers or the bush administration are the least bit concerned about the poor. "Clearly, any threat to petrodollar holdings could undermine social programs in the U.S., including Medicare and key welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ February 3, 2006). He concludes, "If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as the no. 1 new york times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

Virtually all the proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis are anti-war. None of them regard the petro-dollar thesis as a justification for an american attack on iran. But, it has to be suggested, for many americans this hypothesis would provide sufficient justification for war. If americans are told that iran is devaluing the dollar in their pocket and threatening to bring about the collapse of the american economy they are going to want to know why america hasn’t started bombing iran. In their eyes, such a war would be self-defence, defending their way of life. There is a considerable danger that anti-war critics are going to find their explanation for the likelihood of an american attack on iran is a self fulfilling prophesy by helping to win popular support for the war.

The second main political danger posed by the bourse thesis, is that it could also serve as an important political means for helping the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby, the jewish owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration, to cover up the real motives for the war – a proxy zionist war to boost global jewish power.

Ann berg has recently dismissed the whole idea of an iranian oil bourse because of the considerable technical difficulties entailed. What talcott parsons once called "the non-contractual elements of contracts". "If you're waiting for the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) – the proposed euro-based petroleum futures exchange in Tehran – to overthrow the global dollar-based economy, don't hold your breath. Establishing a futures-trading mechanism to compete with the powerhouses of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for the oil trade is as probable as U.S. energy independence in our lifetime." (Ann Berg ‘Is the IOB DOA?: The Iranian oil bourse: theory and reality’ February 28, 2006). Perhaps this is why it is not financiers, economists, or capitalists, leading the demands for a war against iran to protect their interests. It has to be suggested that the idea of an iranian oil bourse bringing about the collapse of the dollar as a global currency has more to do with wishful thinking than reality. It also seems as if left wingers’ have a desperate need to invent a fiction which enables them to avoid confronting the reality of jewish power manipulating america into sequential, proxy zionist wars.

Western Military Adventurism.
Some commentators have argued that america’s invasion of iraq was an example of the military-industrial complex promoting a superflous war to boost government expenditure on the military and to enable the american military to field test its latest high tech weaponry. However, in reality many high ranking military figures opposed the invasion - particularly because they believed the number of troops allocated to the american military for maintaining the occupation was grossly insufficient. "That's what this controversy is all about: the reemergence of opposition to the war from within the top echelons of the uniformed military, as well as the intelligence community and the Democratic Party. It was the generals, you'll remember, who opposed this war and pointed out our unpreparedness from the very beginning, starting with but not limited to Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was fired for saying we would need 200,000 troops for the occupation. Now that their predictions have come true, in spades, and our armed forces are being chewed up on the battlefields of Iraq, the uniformed wing of the Peace Party is returning for a second engagement, and they're bringing out the big guns." (Justin Raimondo ‘Murtha Is Right’ November 21, 2005). "Most independent military and intelligence experts think that the Bush administration has led the United States into strategic folly. For example, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, said, "The fact is, we’re in trouble. We’re in deep trouble in Iraq." Republican Senators Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed similar sentiments.20 Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former Marine commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, noted, "And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls."21 Similarly, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, marine general Joseph Hoar, another former U.S. Middle East commander, said, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss." In a surprisingly candid assessment from an active senior officer just back from Iraq, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the army’s Eighty-second Airborne Division, noted, "We are winning tactically, but have made a few tactical blunders . . . which created strategic consequences in world opinion. We are losing public support regionally, internationally, and within America—thus, currently, we are losing strategically."22" (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ January 2005); "Not only do an overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq want the occupation to end rapidly, but the foreign policy establishment of the United States is opposed to the war and is speaking out against the president's policies. These include: Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star general, was commander of the U.S. Central Command (1991-94) and of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, who described the Iraq War as "wrong from the beginning, and so as is often the case, it's very hard to make it right once you start down the wrong road." Gen. William Odom, ret., former national security adviser to Presidents Carter and Reagan, who wrote "What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?," in which he persuasively argued that the war is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden and the Iranians, and is fomenting civil war in Iraq. He describes the Iraq war as "the most strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history." Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser, who described the Iraq war as a "failing venture" weeks before the last presidential election and argued in 2002, before the decision to invade Iraq, that: "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, who labeled Bush's foreign policy "suicidal statecraft" in a Los Angeles Times commentary: "Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming 'I will stay the course' is an exercise in catastrophic leadership." John Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995-96 and deputy defense secretary 1994-95, who called for U.S. troops to immediately leave Iraq in June 2005. These are just a few among many. In fact, in March 2003, shortly before the war began, hundreds of retired military officers wrote President Bush requesting a meeting before a final decision was made to invade. They expressed grave concerns about a war with Iraq." (Kevin B. Zeese ‘The Commander in Chief Has Lost the Troops’ March 1, 2006).

Iranian Imperial Expansionism.
Another possible explanation for an american attack on iran is the danger posed by iranian imperial expansion – although this is more of a theoretical explanation in so much as it is never discussed in the west. This explanation is composed of two aspects. Firstly, religious. One of the main tenets of the shiite religion is the unification of all shiites in the middle east. "The nation-state is just a stage on the road to the final triumph of Shi'ism and pure Islam. But to go beyond this stage it's necessary to reinforce the nation-state and its Shi'ite sanctuary, which happens to be Iran. When Shi'ism finally triumphs, the concept of nation-state, a heritage from the West, will disappear anyway, to the benefit of a community according to the will of Prophet Mohammed." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ Sep 30, 2005).

Secondly, economic. Iran possesses a great many oilfields but just beyond its borders lie even more which, in the future as iran’s fossil fuels begin to dwindle, will appear increasingly tempting – especially when many of the populations living in proximity to these oilfields are also shiites – albeit predominantly arabic. Historically, persia was a much greater empire than it is today and it could use imperial glories to lay claim to some of these areas with rich oilfields. "Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ Jan 24, 2006); "Hasa, in Saudi Arabia, stretching from the Kuwaiti border to the Qatar border, has been populated by Shi'ites since the 10th century. That's where the oil is. Seventy percent of the workforce in the oilfields is Shi'ite. The potential for them to be integrated in a Shi'ite crescent is certainly there. Kuwait lies north of Hasa. Twenty-five percent of Kuwaitis are Shi'ite - natives or immigrants, and they provoke the same sort of geopolitical quandary to the Kuwaiti princes as they do to the Saudis. South of Hasa, in Qatar, where also 25% of the population is Shi'ite, is the exact same thing. And then there's Bahrain. Sixty-five percent of Bahrain is Shi'ite." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ Sep 30, 2005).

When ayatollah khomeini came to power in iran in 1979, there was a huge upswell of shiite religious fervour – after all, this was the first time in shiite history that they’d succeeded in forming their own state. This religious fervour led to the formation of revolutionary guards who saw their role as spreading the shiite religion around the middle east. The butchery that iran suffered as a result of saddam hussein’s american proxy war against iran almost completely quoshed these imperialist dreams but this doesn’t mean to say they cannot be reignited.

The Decades Long Animosity of the Jews-Only State to Iran.
The most convincing argument that an attack on iran has nothing to do with america’s need to protect its oil supplies nor america’s fear of an iranian oil bourse but is solely to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine, is that zionist animosities towards iran go back many decades. It is true that america has its own animosities towards iran concerning the overthrow of america’s puppet regime headed by the shah of iran but especially the detention of american hostages. However, america’s foreign policies towards iran cannot possible have been determined over all this time solely by a desire for revenge because of events that happened 27 years ago. America’s revenge against iran must have been slaked by the war against iran it encouraged saddam to launch in 1980.

Since the jews-only state’s development of nuclear weapons in the mid 1960s, its biggest foreign policy objective has been to prevent any country in the middle east from also developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. "The Israeli Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would "consider an attack" if any country gets "close to achieving a nuclear capability."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003); "A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon Shahak, has declared, "all methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear capabilities from an Arab state."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003).

The jews-only state has long feared any arab/islamic country using their vast fossil fuel resources to become an economically prosperous and industrially advanced country which could develop civilian nuclear power, sustain a powerful military armed with the most technologically advanced weapons, and eventually acquire nuclear weapons. Historically, the jews-only state was particularly worried this might happen in iran under the shah or iraq under saddam hussein.

In the late 1960s the americans pushed aside the security concerns of the jews-only state and encouraged the shah of iran to develop nuclear energy using american technology and contractors. The overthrow of the shah in 1979 by the islamic revolution must have petrified the jews-only state which must have had suspicions that islamic revolutionaries might attempt to develop nuclear weapons. It must have been a huge relief to discover that ayatollah khomeini believed civilian nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons, were contrary to islam and virtually brought to an end ant further work on their development. (Incidentally, the same view is also held by the iran’s current ayotallah). However, whilst iran’s revolutionary islamic government did not pose a threat on the nuclear front, it gradually became a threat to the security of the jews-only state in palestine by funding and arming hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon. After the jews-only state’s illegal invasion of lebanon, hezbollah developed into a well organized and well trained guerilla movement. It put up a heroic resistance to the jews-only state’s continuing occupation of southern lebanon.

The jews-only state in palestine, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the clinton administration, started their political attack on iran in the early 1990s. Almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, the jews began to highlight their other major adversary. In the mid 1990s, a number of jewish politicians in america, fearing the survival of the jews-only state in palestine, wrote a pamphlet proposing the use of american military power to attack iran. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ October 9th 2005). This document is an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The jewish lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ December 30, 2005).

The primary reason that jews gave for the imposition of these sanctions was iran’s support for hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon. At that time, iran had never even thought of the possibility of selling its oil in euros rather than dollars – if only because there were no euros in existence at the time! And there was never even thought of iran setting up an oil bourse. "Readers keep asking if Bush is attacking Iran because it plans to open an oil bourse that would permit oil to trade in Euros. A number of readers mistakenly believe that this would wreck the dollar's value. The answer is no. The neocons' plans for the Middle East predate any notion of an Iranian oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ February 11th 2006). Another reason for these sanctions was jews’ residual concern over iran’s potential for developing nuclear weapons. The jews-only state wanted to curb iranian economic development so that it could not obtain the wealth, and industrial expertise, to develop nuclear energy and thus nuclear weapons if it should ever change its mind over these issues.

In the decade or so since these sanctions were imposed, america’s gigantic multi-national oil companies have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in profits because of their government’s ban on the exploitation of iran’s vast fossil fuel reserves. These sanctions have not only had a significant economic impact on america’s oil companies and thus america’s economy, they have also had a detrimental political impact as iran has sought to foster relations with russia and china to exploit its resources which has led to a new political and military realignment between these countries which, over time, could seriously rival american world power. (It possible this geopolitical shift in power has been stopped dead in its tracks since america forced russia and china into line over the referral of iran to the united nations security council). As a consequence, america’s economic and national interests have been severely harmed by the sanctions that the jewish lobby forced america into imposing on iran. The jews-only state has cost american oil companies and the american economy vast sums of money which dwarf the subsidies which the jews-only state extracts from its american colony. Nothing could indicate more clearly the dominance of america’s jewish lobby over america’s gigantic, multi-national, oil companies than clinton’s ban on american oil investments in iran. For an in depth analysis of the losses suffered by american oil companies and the american economy see ‘ How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’.

At the end of the millenia, hezbollah freedom fighters succeeded in heroically driving the jews-only army from lebanon - its first military defeat since the establishment of the jews-only state. At the same time, iran’s technological improvements to its missiles and its renewed interest in the development of civilian nuclear energy ratched up the paranoia within the jews-only state about iran’s potential for nuclear weapons. "Israel is concerned about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader, coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon." (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003); "This report comes in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead. Israeli statements stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be problem to all and would require "American leadership, with serious participation of the G-7 . . . ."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003).

After america’s invasion of iraq and the overthrow of saddam hussein, the jews-only state quickly moved on to a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In late 2002, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq

The jews-only state continues to whine about hezbollah’s control over southern lebanon and the threat it poses to the jews-only state even though hezbollah has no offensive capability. It military power lies solely in its defensive capabilities. The jews-only state, based on a religion of vengeance, is seeking revenge against iran for the defeat of the jews-only state at the hands of hezbollah freedom fighters. It also fears the threat posed by iran’s nuclear energy programme and its non-existent nuclear weapons. None of these jewish paranoias have any relevance to america’s economic interests or its national security and yet the jewish lobby in america has succeeded in pushing the iranian threat to the top of america’s political agenda. The jews-only state has forced the american government to lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits for the sake of trying to stop hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon fighting to reclaim land tthat had been stolen by the jews. It is now manipulating the bush administration into a war against iran which could have a crippling impact on the american economy and the american military. It is staggering that the jews-only state and its jewish traitors in america can get away with manipulating america into implementing the foreign policies of the jews-only state even though they run counter to american economic and security interests.

The theses that america is going to attack iran in order to protect its oil supplies or in order to prevent the establishment of an iranian oil bourse are irrelevant in comparison to the jewish endeavour to push america into action against iran in order to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine. The function of these rationales is solely to popularize a war against iran because americans might otherwise wonder why they should risk their lives and their living standards to promote the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine.

Concluding Remarks.
It is commonly recognized that america has suffered grievous economic and military losses in iraq. The iraq war has proven beyond doubt that the american military cannot hope to invade a country and steal its oil. Oil exports from iraq have plummeted since the invasion and there is no sign of them increasing until the americans leave. The war against iraq has shown that sending in Bulls to guard china shops is not sensible or profitable.

If america is forced into launching its third proxy zionist war – this time against iran – it will once again suffer huge economic and military losses. America has no economic, military, or political, interests in a war against iran. Neither the american military, american financial institutions, american oil companies nor american multi-national corporations support an attack on iran. The drum beats for war are coming overwhelmingly from jews. These jews are promoting this war solely because of the huge benefits that will accrue to the jews-only state in palestine even though it will cause significant losses to america’s economy and military power. The jews pushing america into a war against iran are in a no-lose situation: all the benefits will accrue to the jews-only state and all the losses will be incurred by america. They do not care about the losses america’s human and economic losses. The jews in america promoting a proxy zionist war against iran are traitors to america and the american people.