The real reason for open U.S. hostility towards Iran? The IOB explained (1 Viewer)

steve albino

New Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
857
Location
smocation
Website
Visit site
Petro-Euro: A reality or distant nightmare for the U.S.?
4/30/2006 1:50:00 PM GMT


Will big international oil trading companies agree to accept deals in Euros?

In the current ‘crisis’ over Iran’s plans to develop nuclear technology, the real reason for open U.S. hostility towards Iran is often over-looked. For the past few years, Iran has been planning to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant centre of the Middle East oil trade. Currently there are only two oil trading centres in the world; New York and London and both trade only in U.S. Dollars. What will make the proposed IOB different is that it has stated that it will trade in Euros not Dollars.

The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade and the U.S. economy has benefited hugely from this status as it has led to being the world’s largest reserve currency kept by State Banks the world over. It is an open secret that since the 1970’s, OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia) has been instructed by the U.S. to only trade in US Dollars.

The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in Euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to many experts, such a move could lead to a collapse in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s. The IOB has been on Iran's agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly dropped as the deadline neared. The question is whether Iran wishes to have the nuclear issue resolved before taking on the US Dollar in the IOB or whether Iran has been intimidated by U.S. pressure and threats of possible nuclear strikes and decided to postpone the IOB indefinitely.

March 20, the latest rumoured date, would have coincided with the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.

Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. China, which is emerging as Iran’s largest customer, would have no objection to paying Iran in Euros and thus begin the move from the dollar to the euro.

"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading centre, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.

"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in Euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.

Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties with Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.

Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2003 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for Iraq’s oil exports and Oil for Food programme, choosing Euros instead. After discovering no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, speculation naturally moved onto the real cause of the invasion; many now are convinced that was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute Dollars for Euros.

Even more worrying than Iran’s statements, however, were those recently made by the Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, in a recent meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington. Kudrin caused his American hosts huge discomfort by openly questioning the dollar's pre-eminence as the world's "absolute" reserve currency.

The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning U.S. trade deficit "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability." The U.S. Federal Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action - raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in check.

Given the fact that Iraq’s oil production is now lower than before the U.S. invasion and that the country is now a net importer of oil (incredible for a country sitting on the world’s second largest known reserves) and its oil effectively not available in the international market despite the presence of over 130,000 U.S. troops, it is little wonder if finance ministers and governors of State Banks all over the world are getting nervous about the U.S. military’s ability to ensure oil supplies; a task it has been charged with exclusively since the First Gulf War of 1991.

Russia with its huge oil and gas reserves could present an even bigger challenge to the U.S. and the dollar's supremacy and could not be threatened by any American political or military retaliation same way as Iran. The irony of the situation is that Iran and Russia are both in a much stronger bargaining position given the U.S. failure in Iraq to increase or protect oil supplies, thereby leading to a huge increase in oil prices, making both Iran and Russia much richer in the process.

The dollar’s current position is due to the fact that the U.S. currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central bank reserves worldwide and the fact that all international oil transactions have to be in US Dollars, thereby making the dollar the international oil currency. This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand, whatever the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America is increasingly reliant on this status. The unprecedented weight of U.S. liabilities means that any threat to the dollar's dominance could result in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into recession.

Recently Sweden has cut its dollar holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent, with the Euros share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some Gulf States have also lately mooted a shift into the Euro. Such sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the single currency last week.

Another important point is that the EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU, which makes Russia a strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start trading in Euros. The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the U.S. currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which looks likely sooner or later, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading.

The U.S. knows this, which is why it is very sensitive to any debate on the dollar’s position. The next 12 months will decide if Russia or Iran will take the first meaningful steps to challenge the dollar and whether the Petro-Euro will become a reality rather than just a distant nightmare for the U.S. government.



http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11145
 
yeah it probably has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to build a heavy water reactor for plutonium reprocessing.
 
oh shit said:
yeah it probably has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to build a heavy water reactor for plutonium reprocessing.
Building, or trying to build a heavy water reactor isn't against international law, doesn't violate the Non Proliferation Treaty and hasn't provoked the Bush Administration to threaten Israel, North Korea or India with either sanctions or a type 7 security council resolution (all of those countries have functioning nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the NPT, one of them is officially at war with the US, and India will be aided in developing it's nuclear capability directly from the US itself which is hailed by the Bush administration as a great step forward for both countries.)

As for the Iranian Nuclear Program, here's some highlights:
(Originaly from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program)
The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid during the Cold War, in the late 1950s under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Iran. A civil nuclear cooperation program was signed as soon as 1957 with the U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program.

In 1959 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, operational from 1967 and fuelled with highly enriched uranium.[2] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue.

President Gerald Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle", with all the dangerous consequences that would entail including the possibility of this plutonium being used sooner or later to make weapons. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."[4]

President Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

Accordingly, vice-president Dick Cheney, secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were all involved in backing Iran's Nuclear Program designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.[7]

After the 1979 Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indigenously-made nuclear fuel, and in 1983 the IAEA even planned to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Program to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious programme in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. However, the IAEA was forced to terminate the program under U.S. pressure.[8] The revolution was a turning point in terms of foreign cooperation on nuclear technology.

In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the partially complete Bushehr plant, installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor. The construction is being done by the state-controlled company Atomstroyexport (Russian for Atomic Construction Export), an arm of Russia's atomic energy ministry, Minatom. There are no current plans to complete Bushehr II reactor.
In 1996, the U.S. tried, without success, to block China from selling to Tehran a conversion plant. China also provided Iran with gas needed in for the enriched uranium process.

In January 2006, James Risen, a New York Times reporter, alleged in his book State of War that in February 2000, a U.S. covert operation - code-named Operation Merlin - had backfired. It originally aimed to provide Iran with a flawed design for building a nuclear weapon, in order to delay the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Instead, the plan may have accelerated Iran's nuclear program by providing useful information, once the flaws were identified.[12]


Dr. William O. Beeman ( Brown University's Middle East Studies program professor [20], who spent years in Iran ) also points out that the United States policy towards the Iranian nuclear program has shifted greatly from the 1970s:
"White House staff members, who are trying to prevent Iran from developing its own nuclear energy capacity and who refuse to take military action against Iran "off the table", have conveniently forgotten that the United States was the midwife to the Iranian nuclear program 30 years ago.
Every aspect of Iran's current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976. Moreover, the only Iranian reactor currently about to become operative, the reactor in Bushehr, was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval, and cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium". [22]


All ground inspections of Iran have shown the same evidence; Iran is using its nuclear capabilities in context of the NPT and has not pursued nuclear weapons. However, there is evidence that Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan provided Iran with nuclear technology [28]. The United States accuses Iran of seeking the "capacity" to build bombs, or obtaining technology which "could be" used to make bombs. In Paragraph 52 of his November 2003 report the Director-General of the IAEA confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program." [17] After one more year and over tens of thousands of man-hours of inspections, El Baradei again confirmed in Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."[18] On January 31st 2006, the IAEA reported that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency...including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."[19]
 
Did you just copy and paste a wikipedia article? Without attribution?

Dude.

//edit: saw the attrib, my bad
 
yeah i'm very aware of all of the above.
i'm certainly not trying to justify anything.
i think that the tendency to reduce complex situations to simple economic/ideological/lizard-people-conspiracy explanations doesn't really help the important, well meaning arguments for peace, love and understanding.
 
oh shit said:
i think that the tendency to reduce complex situations to simple economic/ideological/lizard-people-conspiracy explanations doesn't really help the important, well meaning arguments for peace, love and understanding.

Couldn't agree more. Posting things like the article at the start of the thread isn't an effort to simplify the issue, - that's why I added a question mark to the Al jazeera headline - although reducing it to a "lizard people conspiracy" seems like a shortcut . I'm hoping that it'll encourage people to add information to either this thread or the stickied Iran thread.
The complex version of the Petro Euro arguement developed by Clark around the time of the Iraq invasion is here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

For me, the heavyhanded simplification of the issue is here:

"Iran = Nazi Germany"
4th February 2006 - At a National Press Club Luncheon on Thursday he compared the election of Iran's PM to the election of Hitler before the second world war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204...1NSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"They'll have the bomb next month, quick let's get 'em:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1727671,00.html

No time to talk, quick let's get 'em:
5th March 2006 - "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve," he warned.
Bolton reaffirmed that Washington does not see the security council moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran. Veto-wielding members Russia and China have made clear their reluctance.
But he said many other governments have begun to speak publicly of sanctions, implying they may take action outside the security council.


Iran is major challenge to peace, quick let's get 'em:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1727316,00.html
 
Defending the dollar standard definitely explains a lot of the actions of the US over the past few years.
It's not a conspiracy/lizards argument in the slightest. Having it guarantees the financial strength of their economy.
Essentially, it's a licence for the US to print money.
 
Fuck Schillaci said:
Defending the dollar standard definitely explains a lot of the actions of the US over the past few years.
It's not a conspiracy/lizards argument in the slightest. Having it guarantees the financial strength of their economy.
Essentially, it's a licence for the US to print money.

interesting aside/tangent, in past few years the russian mafia have started storing and transporting there ill gotten gains in euro, as because the euro is worth more than the dollar and comes in a higher denomenation note (500E versus 100$) its easier to store and ship. Also helps them in their expansion into eastren central europe.

As for the main thrust of this thread, its quite possibly a factor, but maybe not the real reason.

And everyone knows the lizzard people control the world oil market anyway
 
by Middle East FOREX

Iran: Euro to replace dollar as oil currency
In July Iran will ditch the dollar in favour of the euro as the currency in which it will accept payments for its oil and natural gas exports, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Friday.
The switch, first mooted months ago, was expected but Ahmadinejad's decision comes just as Washington is stepping up pressure on other United Nations Security Council members to act against Tehran for flouting agreements taken with the UN's nuclear watchdog.
Ahmadinejad's announcement, made in Baku, Azerbaijan where the Iranian leader is attending a regional economics conference, appears aimed at weakening the United States' resolve to seek sanctions against Iran if it does not comply with the UN International Agency for Atomic Energy's demands.
Some observers beleive the Iranian move could deal a severe blow the the American currency as many central banks from oil importing nations could choose to stock up their currency reserves with euros rather than dollars- AKI.



http://www.middleeastforex.com/index.php?section=215
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top