Add Reply
Related Information to USA vs IranUSA vs Iran - Page 16 of 95
There is no doubt that oil was a major reason - Page 16 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 1st Mar, 2006 - 5:23am
Posts: 758 - Views: 85413
versus 
Will Iran end up like Iraq? Related Information to USA vs Iran
USA vs Iran - Page 16
I recently heard somewhere that Iran is in a pincer. Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other. If it does become necessary to do something about Iran, there are two staging areas to do so.
However, I completely agree that the US cannot be a major part of any action against Iran. Europe doesn't WANT to do anything about Iran. Russia and China are happy with Iran. So, IMO, Iran will continue on its destructive way.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 
85.4%
Sponsored Links:
Iran USA
I think we are jumping the gun a bit with Iran here. I agree that their current leadership are a bunch of ratbags, but they were elected.
And, despite all the rhetoric, Iran has not attacked anyone or indicated it would. It is all rhetoric at this stage. If Iran does attack someone they will be decimated.
Let's not make the same catastrophic mistake as we did with Iraq, by wrongfully accusing them of seeking WMDs without an iota of proof.
And can someone please tell countries armed to their teeth with nuclear weapons to stop telling other people what they can or can't do. Who the hell is Israel to tell other nations they can not acquire the sort of technology they have in hordes?
This is blatant hypocrisy.
The US cannot attack Iran, it simply doesn't have the military capability to do both Iraq and Iran and its other military commitments at the same time. Plus Iran is a far superior military to what Iraq was.
Diplomacy is the only way forward, even though it may sound comical when dealing with the lunatics who currently rule Iran.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Post Date: 27th Feb, 2006 - 12:49pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
USA vs Iran History & Civil Business Politics
IRAN, RUSSIA FORGE DEAL THAT MAY EASE NUCLEAR TENSIONS
Iran and Russia have agreed on a joint venture to enrich uranium in Russia, a move that could end the diplomatic standoff over the Islamic republic's nuclear program.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...lear060226.html
Iran USA
The majority of this discussion has been the military/nuclear differences between the 2 countries: US and Iran. However, there is also a strong political and economic conflict that is brewing as we speak. Iran intends to hurt the US where it hurts the most: the US dollar. Has anyone heard about the Iranian Oil Bourse that is getting ready to go into effect this March?
In a nutshell, the Iranian Oil Bourse is an initiative to trade Euros for oil instead of Dollars for oil; something that Iraq did for years under the regime of Saddam. This International Oil Trade initiative will be in direct competitions with the 2 current world exchanges for oil: NYMEX and IPE, both of which the US have vested interests in, and both of which mandate that sale of oil be done in US dollars. If the oil-trade submitted by Tehran goes into effect, many countries including Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Japan and China may have good financial reasons for adopting it and trading in Euros, which currently is superior to the dollar in value. This will have a crippling effect on the dollar, and bring the US economy literally to its knees. The US Fed will be forced to make drastic changes such as over-inflating the dollar leading to greater financial hurt.
Many believe that this is the main reason why Iran is getting as much attention from the US as it is, and the nuclear situation is simply a way of getting world attention to the country and possibly increased UN sanctions. It will definitely be interesting to follow the 'bourse' that Tehran is proposing in the next few months since it will definitely have implications to the US economy, and possible military ramifications as well.
Here is an article on the Iranian Oil Bourse which offers a far better explanation that I did.
https://USA.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450
International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 24.1%
USA vs Iran
Malexander,
That is really interesting information mate. Thank you for shedding new light on this topic.
It's very disturbing that one country would decide to go to war at the drop of oil, but this is a reality of US foreign policy.
It is the major reason Iraq was invaded - to install a new regime that will be more obedient to US energy demands. It was also the major reason the CIA helped the Baathist party come to power in the first place, all those decades ago. That experiment failed when Saddam invaded Kuwait so he had to be removed.
Now Iran, which understandably doesn't want to have a bar of the US, is being threatened because it doesn't plan to fuel the US economy.
The US of course backed Iraq in their bloody war with Iran - this was partly because the Iranian's were dealing with the Soviets and not them.
Dick Cheney is the most hawkish Neo-con when it comes to blurring the line between energy policy and foreign policy. He has a major conflict of interest in Halliburton and was a former CEO. Cheney's oil interests
Dick Cheney commissioned a report on the US energy crisis in 2001. US energy report 2001
It features glossy pictures, lavish illustrations and alarmist language to emphasise the need for the US to secure foreign oil.
Here are some excerpts:
| QUOTE |
| U.S. energy consumption is projected to increase by about 32 percent by 2020. The National Energy Policy seeks to lessen the impact on Americans of energy price volatility and supply uncertainty. Such uncertainty increases as we reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. At the same time, however, we recognize that a significant percentage of our resources will come from overseas. Energy security must be a priority of U.S. trade and foreign policy. We must look beyond our borders and restore America's credibility with overseas suppliers. The United States faces serious energy challenges: electricity shortages and disruptions in California and elsewhere in the West, dramatic increases in gasoline prices due to record-low inventories, a strained supply system, and continued dependence on foreign suppliers. A significant disruption in world oil supplies could adversely affect our economy and our ability to promote key foreign and economic policy objectives, regardless of the level of U.S. dependence on oil imports. By 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world's oil. Thus, the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend on the supply of oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf. This region will remain vital to U.S. interests. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, has been a linchpin of supply reliability to world oil markets. We need to strengthen our trade alliances, to deepen our dialogue with major oil producers, and to work for greater oil production in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, the Caspian, and other regions with abundant oil resources. We need to ensure that our partners in the International Energy Agency (IEA) continue to meet their obligations for emergency supply reserves. |
The last two paragraphs are instrumental to the information you presented Malexander.
The need to strengthen trade alliances with major oil producers is paramount. Saddam and the current Iran leadership are not US alliances. They are also two of the larger oil producing states in the Middle East.
If you read between the lines, the last par of the excerpt is also important. There is a need to ensure that energy suppliers meet their obligations for emergency supplies. This document doesn't elaborate on how the US plans to ensure this happens, but I think we are now seeing the preferred method.
It's true that Iran does have some level of military threat, but so does North Korea.
But as Malexander cleverly points out, this might not be the smoking gun.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
USA Iran - Page 16
Here is another article written by Economics expert Krassimir Petrov. It explains the US' rise as an empire and how the strength of the Dollar increased, and then decreased, and why the Iranian 'bourse' will cause it to devalue even more. While I don't completely agree with the author's theories on why Bush invaded Iraq etc, it does show that as president, Bush needed to take measures to ensure the dollar did not completely hit rock bottom. While I don't believe this was the only reason for invading Iraq, it certainly could have been A reason.
| QUOTE |
| 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: |
International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 24.1%
USA Iran Politics Business Civil & History - Page 16
There is no doubt that oil was a major reason for the invasion of Iraq. The US Government, especially through the CIA, has a track record of helping remove regimes that are not compliant to their demands. Often these are resource driven demands masked with a "military threat:" or "ideological" crusade to help sell war to the people.
I fear it could happen to Iran as well. Malexander has pointed out some economic reasons for an attack. The mainstream media will never look deeply into this. Conflict and war sells papers and achieves better ratings.
It's also a far easier for the Administration to install fear into their constituents before a strike, as happened with Iraq.
As we all know, the truth is always the first casualty when selling war.
The question I would like answered: Is it acceptable or right for a country to use military might to rape the resources from a sovereign nation?
How would people feel about Iran being invaded to help the US economy, even though Iran quite legally controls its own resources?
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
TOPIC: USA vs Iran