The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging
Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
By William
Clark
www.globalresearch.ca
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 has a 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
"Of all the enemies
to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it
comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of
armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for
bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could
preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."- James Madison,
Political Observations, 1795
Madison’s words of
wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world
community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in
Iraq
portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of
the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy
regarding Iran. Current
geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the
publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely
include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to
the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the
macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but
real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative
oil transaction currency.
It is now obvious the
invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone
WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International
terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon
reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly
currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004
statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney
administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam
Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S.
government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly
designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro."
However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed,
with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil
trades, while Russia discusses this option.
Candidly stated,
‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet
in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak
Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart
further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of
petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare.
The majority of the
world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not
amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in
Iraq.
Indeed, the author’s
original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a
Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil
sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated
in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never
mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor
this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides
insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the
Iraq war.
"The tender, for
which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars --
the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent
fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for
euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings
thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]
Unfortunately, it has
become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of
ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush,
should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over
the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are
quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this
time against Iran.
"Deep in the
Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S.
military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible
for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than
ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize
the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon
maintains for all contingencies in light of the
Iraq
war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a
revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more
hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries"…"Even hard-liners
acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack
on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some
kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime
change in Damascus and Tehran."
"…administration
hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert
means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea
have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or
"working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of
Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's
abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S.
government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce
any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S.
military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at
the cabinet level." [3]
To date, one of the
more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction
trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or
oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil
markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas
Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude.
However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro
currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing
for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]
Therefore, a
potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004
announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word
"bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived
from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des
Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise
between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum
Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It
should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S.
corporations.
The macroeconomic
implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering
that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU
customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will
usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency.
Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a
broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely
economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro 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).
Acknowledging that
many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the
United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a
significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle
East. If
Iran’s bourse becomes a successful
alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently
enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX),
a factor not overlooked in the following article:
"Iran is to launch an
oil trading market for Middle East
and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of
London's International Petroleum
Exchange."
"…He [Mr. Asemipour]
played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for
the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some
way."
"…Some industry
experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western
exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have
a vested interest in market volatility.
The IPE, bought in
2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley,
was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have
any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]
It is unclear at the
time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt
overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of
petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004
revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have
revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for
operations against that nation.
"The reason for the
US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his
leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the
American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could
happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John
Kerry is sworn in."
"….Diplomats said
Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to
learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials,
who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi
National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of
relations."
"While the US is
uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could
change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be
kept intact." [6]
Regardless of the
potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of
an oil exchange market in the Middle East
is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil
exports in the U.S. and U.K, in
comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry
and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is
scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.
"Asemipour said the
platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the
start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.
He said other members
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the
producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as
oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the
exchange." [7]
(Note: the most
recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse
will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original
March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following
report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian
oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is
becoming unsustainable.
"Chris Cook, who
previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to
markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented:
"Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the
Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."
"Others familiar with
Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to
invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's
relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no
secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its
energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."
"…Along with several
other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the
New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors
and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]
One of the Federal
Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears
international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50
dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40
euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current
20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some
sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse
will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and
fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil
and gas trades.
During an important
speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described
three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros.
[10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude
is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and
(3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar,
and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the
later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above
the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004
from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains
uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S.
banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers
(Paris/Frankfurt).
The implementation of
the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in
utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially
negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr.
Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for
international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during
2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings
of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate
the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency.
[11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed
between the financial interests of the
U.S.
(New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center
(Paris/Frankfurt).
The immediate
question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene
covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the
formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators
in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in
Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters
much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential
effects on the U.S. economy.
"The giving up on the
terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense,
especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has
further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."
"…It is obvious that
sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the
Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO
is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in
Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its
immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."
"….If it [U.S.]
intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve
the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create
a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."
"There is a better
way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has
shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power
resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about
its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and
nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist
terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic
intervention, if at all." [13]
It is abundantly
clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war
with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has
moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has
stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course
if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military
strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue
multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.
Clearly, there are
numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First,
unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of
any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed
sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of
Abu Musa,
and therefore controls the critical
Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a
U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the
Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market
panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil
production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil
prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the
neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal
is U.S. global domination.
A successful Iranian
bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction
currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the
monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid
precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the
EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an
‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat
of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there
are very good reasons for U.S.
military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in
which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their
tragic pursuit of U.S. global
domination.
"NEWSWEEK has learned
that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S.
pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome.
As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at
preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]
Despite the
impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence
agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly
ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq.
The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive
analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s
nuclear facilities and warned of the following:
"Considering the
extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to
its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the
United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario
includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S.
bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize
Iraq
and foment all-out confrontation between the
United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority.
Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with
a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a
series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."
"…An attack on
Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S.
interests in the Middle East and
the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian
illegal nuclear program, an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or
Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and
reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event
is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and
capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be
just another Osirak. " [17]
Synopsis
Regardless of
whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential
Election a military expedition may still go ahead.
This essay was
written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of
the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving
Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council
if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it
appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear
weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the
fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.
Pentagon sources
confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military
strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously
attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based
system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and
the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military
draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly
shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure.
Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could
undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual
oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either
way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary
compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.
"I am a firm believer
in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any
national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." -
Abraham Lincoln
"Whenever the people
are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever
things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on
to set them to rights." - Thomas Jefferson
References:
[1] "Revisited - The
Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated
January 2004)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
[2] Hoyos, Carol &
Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial
Times, June 5, 2003
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/
Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq
%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm
[3] "War-Gaming the
Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek,
September 27 issue, 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
[4] Shivkumar, C.,
"Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line
(June 16, 2003).
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline
/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
[5] Macalister,
Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian,
June 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
[6] "US to invade
Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June
9, 2004
http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789
[7] "Iran Eyes Deal
on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004)
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588
[8] "Iran's oil
bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004
http://www.iranoilgas.com
[9] "Iran Eyes Deal
on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," ibid.
[10] "The Choice of
Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad
Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The
International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of
Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002,
Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
[11] Russia shifts to
euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
[12] "China to
diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
[13] "Terror & regime
change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News
Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
[14] Analysis of Abu
Musa Island,
www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
[15] J.W. Smith,
"Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy,
2003
http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html
[16] "War-Gaming the
Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.
[17] Salama, Sammy
and Ruster, Karen,"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities:
Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies,
August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
[18] Philips, Peter,
"Censored 2004," Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003)
http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S.
Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
William Clark is the
author of an award-winning essay published online in early 2003 entitled:
'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth.’
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
, also published by Global Research at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA302A.html This essay received
a 2003 ‘Project Censored’ award, and was published in the book, Censored
2004) [18] This pre-war essay hypothesized that Saddam sealed his fate
when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to
accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s oil-for-food program, and
switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export transaction currency.
=====================
Note: Below is a
description of this author’s upcoming book: (Available spring 2005.)
Petrodollar Warfare:
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, William Clark
The invasion of Iraq
may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a
response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction,
Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two
converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the
ascendance of the euro currency.
Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after
which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing
the world's second largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of
U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched
its oil transaction currency to euros -- rather than U.S. dollars -- the
Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum
in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.
Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar hegemony
and the unsustainable macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling,' pointing
out that the issues underlying the Iraq war also apply to geopolitical
tensions between the U.S. and other countries including the European Union
(E.U.), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without
changing course, the American Experiment will end the way all empires end
- with military over-extension and subsequent economic decline. He
recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms
within a United Nations framework to create a more balanced global energy
and monetary system thereby reducing the possibility of future
oil-depletion and oil currency-related warfare.
A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism, Petrodollar
Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global
political economy.
© Copyright WILLIAM
CLARK, CRG 2004.
27 October 2004
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.