March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis?

by **Byrne** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:06 pm

DE, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>what do you think is up with the bourse? With these dire predictions? Has your opinion changed due to the 26th arriving with no nuclear wars? Just curious<hr></blockquote> DE, As I have said before, i do not believe that the IOB will be allowed to come into existence. I think that at the moment there is a lot of behind the scenes wrangling going on between Russia, China on the one hand, and the US & others (?) on the other. It is difficult to get authoratative news reports on anything to do with the IOB - most articles are by commentators (e.g. Clark, Engdahl, Petrov), with very little/no consensus reporting from News Agencies or news journals. Searching tonight, I found <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/14131.html" target="top">this page</a>, which has a number of interesting articles : &<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Launch of Iranian oil trading hits wall Oil exchange unlikely to begin till at least midyear John Partridge, Globe & Mail (Canada) As the nuclear standoff pitting Iran against the West continues, some conspiracy theorists are more focused on another plan that the Middle Eastern nation is pursuing. But they are jumping the gun if they still figure Iran is within days of launching a new international oil exchange that would sell its own and other Middle Eastern oil producers' black gold in euros rather than U.S. dollars -- and which, the theory goes, could ultimately torpedo the greenback and the U.S. economy. Despite repeated reports over the past 18 months or so that the planned bourse would finally open for business on March 20, 2006 -- and go head to head with the New York Mercantile Exchange and the ICE Futures Exchange in London -- the start date has been postponed by at least several months and maybe more than a year. "In the middle of 2006, we are able to start the bourse," Mohammad Asemipur, special adviser on the project to Iran's Oil Minister, said when reached in Tehran. The plan is to trade petrochemical products first, with a crude oil contract coming last, a rollout that likely will take three years, he said. (14 March 2006)<hr></blockquote> Also on the same page is <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sen. Lugar: Energy is the albatross of U.S. national security (PDF) US Senator Dick Lugar U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar addressed the Brookings Institution today on “U.S. Energy Security - A New Realism.” In this speech, Lugar says: “. . . energy is the albatross of U.S. national security.” “. . . there is not a full appreciation of our economic vulnerability or the competition that is already occurring throughout the world.” “. . . oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict and threats of military action, than it already is.” “Geology and politics have created petro-superpowers that nearly monopolize the world’s oil supply. According to PFC Energy, foreign governments control up to 77 percent of the world’s oil reserves through their national oil companies. These governments set prices through their investment and production decisions, and they have wide latitude to shut off the taps for political reasons.” <hr></blockquote> Something is afoot - & of course there is the publicly (mis)reported brinkmanship of the nuclear issue with John Bolton pressing for UN sanctioned action against Iran (with Russia & China unlikely to agree to) & the foolhardy announcements of the Iranian president .......(but no mention by him either of the IOB!). & India's & Pakistan's interests have to be weighed up in the balance.... I think that the issue has been delayed, but the problem will not go away for the US, particularly as it's public debt increases by billions per day. Congress recently voted to up the US public Debt limit. What is going to happen when that limit is reached & meanwhile other nations have done some shillyshalling behind the scenes.... I dunno, I don't think anyone knows what is in the pipeline......... As an aside, listening recently to a Webster Tarpley broadcast from early March 06 - he mentioned a number of issues, including the potential effect of the IOB. Other points he made included the West's fears of the joining of Russia & Belarus together. Lo & behold, the Belarus public just voted (84% of those that voted) for a presedential candidate that supported such a move, while the US (& the EU) are crying election fraud & necessary sanctions! the other subject was the Shanghai Co-operative exchange, which I don't know a lot about, but which WT seemed to think was going to be very influential. Tarpley does, in my book, speak a lot of sense. I heard him talk in Manchester, UK, last year.

by **StarmanSkye** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:40 pm

Apparently, the Iranian Oil Bourse has been delayed or postponed 'for technical reasons', relating to inability to choose/agree on an Oil Minister. At least, that seems to be the official reason. The truth may be something more sinsister -- as behind-the-scenes threats and/or concessions may have been given to give Iran a reprieve from military aggression -- perhaps aggravated by the tentative agreement between Iran and Russia that uranium enrichment will be handled in Russia -- so further confounding the US's attempt to use nuclear-development as a pretext for bombing. Which MOST of the world apparently sees right thru. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME). Alternatively, China's recent oil-deals with Iran has given it a vital stake in any global power-play, and I'm sure there have been many Diplomatic messages passing back and forth between the US and China on this issue -- as too, the other Middle East Nations have a stake in a widening of the US resource-wars. It would seem, even staunch Republicans are now criticizing the Pres. Bush's (sic) reckless war-mongering ambitions -- since the 'Nuke Iran' play is so transparently a ploy in the same mold as Iraq's missing WMD. The report on Iran's Oil Bourse has been carried by most of the world's largest non-US media -- isn't THAT surprising?(well, NO -- given the crucial threat an oil Bourse trading in Euros will pose to the US's fiat-currency, esp. given the hostile anti-US mood among the world's largest nations as well as the developing world) -- A euro-based oil market would be to Europe's immediate self-interest, as numerous economic analysts have pointed out. There are over 500,000 google hits on 'Iran Oil Bourse'. Most of the world now holding dollars would jump at the chance to diversify before the dollar crashes -- which economic analysts also see as the main reason for the Fed to stop posting M3 figures (to hide the dollar's dumping on the international market as states and institutional investers diversify). The US has tried to have its cake and eat it too -- exporting inflation and importing deflation -- but it's unlikely the world with newly-opened eyes at American reckless self-absorbed intransigence will just sit by and let the Americans party-hearty while they foot the bill -- AND stick-around to clean-up the mess. As the Bolivarians would say, "No MAS!" Iran's oil bourse was formally announced by Iran in its Development Plan 2000-2005 -- it's hardly a rumour. The recent report by a supposed Iran official who said he never heard of it can only be a bit of backpedaling for whatever insignificant purpose -- as how can an Iranian official convincingly refute something that has become common knowledge throughout the industrialized world by simply feigning ignorance? It doesn't make sense. More auspicious is WHY would there be such a huge blackout of the Iran Bourse story in American media, including the Wall Street Journal? THAT'S the story -- the dog that shouldda but didn't, wouldn't bark -- a lead to how significant an issue this really is and threatening to the status quo. The Iranian Bourse has been reported by, and about, by Global Research, IranMania, Energy Bulletin, Asia Times, The Insider, Info Clearing House, Op Ed News, Al Jazeera, Daily Kos, The New Statesman (excellant article by John Pilger, 'Iran: The Next War), The Economist, Wallstreet Examiner (another excellant article by Charles Mackay, 'Petrodollar Warfare', that explains why the US HAS to prevent or delay any euro-challenge to the dollar's supremacy -- see his excerpts at: <a href="http://wallstreetexaminer.com/?itemid=1267),">wallstreetexaminer.com/?itemid=1267),</a> and many, many, many other venues. Starman ****** <a href="http://www.newsfollowup.com/iran_2.htm">www.newsfollowup.com/iran_2.htm</a> Kitco Oil Bourse on Hold THE GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE The gold price has been under correction for over a month. The USDollar appears to be rolling over, set for a fresh decline. The euro currency is jumping after a threatened breakdown. The yen currency is awakening after a long sleep. Long-term yields in the United States have broken out higher, likely to go much higher. A powerful vicious hurricane slammed Australia with 180 mile per hour winds. They are in summer, and offer vivid preview to the US Gulf Coast this late summer. The Dubai Ports World snafu has faded as a story, without any report of the vested personal interest to profit from the deal by highly placed USGovt officials and related family members. At least in the 1960 decade, the press reported how Lyndon Johnson blocked FCC licenses for rival radio and television stations in Texas. Have news networks merged with state interests in recent years? More avian flu diagnoses, with concern over mutations to human communicable strains. Last week was a very interesting week, anything but boring. Iran, USA, Russia, and China have engaged the United Nations in a high jinks game over nuclear technology, with the same disinformation games played as with the Iraqi War. See the mythical laptop PC smuggled out of Iran loaded with incriminating evidence (linking nuclear weapon development to the highest government levels) which nobody has seen, whose contents are to be trusted as damning according to the intelligence community, and which the International Atomic Energy Commission has largely dismissed as illegitimate. The same trick was used with Iraq last time, proved to be a ruse. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Oh yes, lest we forget, the Iraqi War is not paying for itself from increased oil output, as promised. Cost estimates vault into the trillion$ range. And what’s more, it appears that democracy might be incompatible with the Islamic culture, as feared. The Civil War is broadening inside Iraq, fully denied by the USGovt and US Military. Is our objective clear? The Secy State Powell speech before the UN stated the murky case against Iraq, but no UN sanction vote was granted. The United Nations was sidestepped last time, with the US Congress employed as the foundation for war. The UN is being used as the device to sidestep Congress this time. The United States might force Russia and China to take sides. There might be no winners in this strategy. To be sure, most Americans are inadequately informed, just like with Iraq. In my view, the most dangerous development is how the US Congress has been rendered marginalized and unimportant, a non-participant and effront to representative democracy, which we claim to export! In the ancient Roman Empire, their Senate became marginalized as it morphed from a republic to something much worse, finally chaos. In such a dangerous and unstable climate, it is difficult to imagine gold selling off. Any breakout of war on a new Iranian front will undoubtedly cause the crude oil price to spike upward. Whether the Straits of Hormuz are shut down in obstruction, that is yet another question. Any relaxation of tensions with Iran will surely remove $20 to $30 from the gold price, and remove $3 to $5 from the crude oil price. An ignited new war front will send the crude oil price to heights unseen before, and will send the gold price upward in a monthly $100 jump easily. CONCLUSION The United States, under its hostile, arrogant, irresponsible, nearsighted economic leadership, guided by misdirected, unwise, heretical, charlatan financial counsel, fully encouraged in indulgent, thoughtless, undisciplined, indebted lifestyle among the public, has actually thought it could export inflation, import deflation, enjoy the spending largesse afforded by a housing bubble, and expect to get away with the crime against Mother Economic Nature month after month, year after year. The price to be paid will come. It always does. Its form is uncertain. What is so exasperating is that instead of working toward a remedy, we desperately increase pressure on the gas pedal on the financial buggy. A flood of USDollars has entered into the world markets, with no prospect of abatement. The USGovt and USFed have inflated like crazy for ten years running, and now must defend the USDollar. THIS IS CLEAR WEIMAR-LIKE ACTIVITY, LOCKED INTO POLICY MAKING. My view is that a return to normalcy is poppycock, never to happen! We have gone so far afield, so far from anything recognizable or rectifiable, that normalcy is not even remotely possible in the gold and crude oil markets. The USFed will tighten until they cause a crisis, then deny their role, then clean it up, probably followed by easing of interest rates. The next LTCM fiasco lies around the corner, under the surface, ready to be revealed, sure to wreck havoc. Gold and crude oil will be given a grand assist when it happens, not if. It is guaranteed since the USFed can no longer even define what “neutrality” means in its policy. Besides, what it says usually obscures its actual policy motive. My firm belief is that the Enron model was hatched from the USGovt incubator, where it continues. Geopolitical tensions are elevated. Even when stable, they constantly remain very high. Gold usually thrives in such an environment. The pendulum of time and financial justice swings. We are on the doorstep to the next grand step down for the USDollar and the next grand step up for gold. Expect all hell to break loose when it becomes increasingly clear that the USFed is a blink away from the end of its tightening cycle. That is all that supports the USDollar, held by the tenterhooks of rising interest rates. **** <a href="http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/01-business/B-economy/2006/01B-02-09-06-has-bush-forgotten-about-iranian-bourse.html">www.fourwinds10.com/news/...ourse.html</a> Has Bush Forgotten About the Iranian Bourse? From: <a href="http://www.teamliberty.net/id217.html">www.teamliberty.net/id217.html</a> January 27, 2006 – Has BUSH forgotten about the Iranian Bourse? That is a very good question. It would be an even better question if a reporter sitting in the White House Press Room asked it to White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan. Unfortunately no member of the White House Press Corps has ever asked this question. Why not? The rest of the world seems to think it’s an important question, so why isn’t the mainstream media in the United States sniffing this story out like presidential seaman on a pretty blue dress? It is a disgrace that ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News are purposefully ignoring the story of the Iran Oil Bourse. It is shameful that Americans have to get Iran Oil Bourse news from sources such as Aljazeera and Gulf News. To understand why news sources in the United States are not reporting on the Iran Oil Bourse requires an understanding of how paper money is printed in the United States and who profits from the process. So who’s saying what, and where? Perhaps the last time a meaningful U.S. news source has opined on the Iran Oil Bourse occurred on August 30, 2005 in The Christian Science Monitor when it published ‘Iran’s oil gambit – and potential affront to the US’ by Staff Writer Howard LaFranchi.[1] LaFranchi started his article with the question, “Is the biggest threat Iran poses to the United States really its nuclear ambitions – or is it petropolitics?” That’s another good question. Here are key points made in the LaFranchi article: The Iran Oil Bourse would be a euro-denominated exchange in oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products. If successful, the Iran Oil Bourse would compete with London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) – both owned by American companies. “If the billions of dollars in oil sales ever got into euros, experts say, that could dry up the demand for dollars that the heavily indebted US economy depends on, and could mean big trouble for the US economy”. To find additional “mainstream” media coverage on the Iran Oil Bourse, inquiring Americans must look towards the mainstream media outlets overseas. On January 24, 2006, Gulfnews.com published an article titled, ‘Iran’s new bourse may threaten the dollar’, by Linda S. Heard, Specialist Writer on Middle East Affairs to Gulf News.[2] Here are the key points made in the Heard article: “In March 2006, Iran is scheduled to open its own oil bourse that will trade in euros. But even before it can open its doors, Iran is being accused of harbouring a clandestine weapons programme and is being threatened with sanctions or worse”. “It should also be stressed that Iran’s moratorium on uranium enrichment negotiated with Britain, France, and Germany, was voluntary”. “A growing number of experts believe Iran’s new oil bourse is more of a threat to US interests than nuclear missiles”. “Editor and analyst Ryan McGreal points out that America’s greatest export is currently the dollar and when “the balance of reserve holdings starts to shift from dollars to euros, that’s very bad news for America’s system of dollar hegemony”. On January 21, 2006, Middle East News Service, Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com, which is not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV station whose website is Aljazeera.net, published an article titled, ‘End of the West’s economic arrogance.’[3] The key questions and points in this piece are as follows: “Has BUSH forgotten about the Iranian Bourse? Have Europeans forgot about the Iranian oil that will be delivered to Western Europe via pipeline?” “The Tehran government has a developed plan to begin competing with New York’s NYMEX and London’s IPE with respect to international oil trades…” “Tehran’s future plans pose an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market” “What we see in today’s tension between Washington and Tehran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions. It appears similar to what happened with Iraq before the war was launched” “Military operation against Iran relates to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency” On August 26, 2005, Asia Times published an article by Toni Strata titled, ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’.[4] Toni Straka is a Vienna, Austria-based independent financial analyst and portfolio manager, who worked as a financial journalist for over 15 years and now evaluates global market trends. He runs The Prudent Investor, where this piece first appeared. Here are the key points made in the Straka article: “Until now, oil has been solely priced, traded and paid for in the greenback on markets in both London and New York” “Especially in the case of Iran, it does not make sense to accept dollars only for its much-desired commodity. Given that Iran is seen as a hostile country by the current US administration for its intention to build its own nuclear reactors, one wonders whether the new IOB will not try to attract buyers other than Americans. Iran has recently announced that the new oil exchange will start up its computers in March 2006” “The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and most deals will be conducted via the Internet. Experts from London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project”, “Weaned off the almighty commodity, the US dollar can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran”, “The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published a paper about the progress of the diversification of central banks' reserves around the world. It concluded that the dollar's position is on the decline in many countries”, “Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US, which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production”, “As this development poses a very real danger to the superior status of the greenback and the interests of the US, the "president of war" can be expected to take a strong line against the winds blowing from the Middle East” Each of the articles referenced above basically make the same point – that the value of the U.S. dollar could be threatened if oil is able to be purchased around the world with any currency other than the U.S. dollar. In addition to the overseas coverage of the looming threat to the U.S. dollar, alternative U.S. news sources found on the Internet are sounding similar alarms. So why is the Iran Oil Bourse a non-issue for our nation’s newspapers and television news? The answer is the Federal Reserve System and how this separate, non-federal power structure makes money out of nothing (prints it) and loans it to the federal government at face value ($1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, etc.) plus interest. The U.S. dollar is nothing more than a piece of printed-paper. There is no anchor to it. No gold, no silver, nothing whatsoever that makes it have value to anyone of us other than our faith in its ability to be exchanged for goods and services. It is called fiat money, and the U.S. government does not control it or print it. The Federal Reserve does. Here are some Federal Reserve Banking Cartel fast facts: The Federal Reserve System was enacted on December 23, 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 The federal government of the United States of America owns no stock in the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve is a tax-exempt, for-profit corporation “Member Banks” own the Federal Reserve The “Member Banks” are private corporations Federal Reserve Notes (U.S. Dollars) are debt notes Federal Reserve Notes are back primarily on the Power of the US Congress to lay tax, on behalf of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, on the people (you and me). When the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 it transferred the power, and its constitutional mandate to coin, issue, and regulate our country’s money to a private corporation. Since that time, the United States of America has borrowed every piece of so-called U.S. money in circulation today from a private corporation, which in turn charges the federal government and the taxpayer, face value plus interest. Therefore, under the present Federal Reserve System our nation’s debt can never be paid off because all money in circulation – every single penny, is borrowed. To pay off all debt in the United States of America would result in absolutely no coin or paper money remaining in circulation The Federal Reserve System only works if we the people are slaves to the state of perpetual debt Despite these fast facts, most Americans believe that the money in their wallets is American money, and that is exactly what the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel wants us to believe, and so does the majority of the U.S. Congress. Why Congress? The U.S. Congress loves deficit spending, that’s why! Without being able to borrow from the Federal Reserve, Congress would not be able to be engaged in all that is wrong with Congress today. It would not be able to employee 2.5 million civilian federal employees. It could not sustain 1174 federal agencies. It could not pass federal mandates that basically blackmail the states to follow suit or else risk losing federal funds that most states need just to meet their annual budgets. Members of Congress would have no funds available to bring home to their constituents and no method to fund private interest groups that can ensure his or her re-election. According to one of a very few good guys in the U.S. Congress, Congressman Ron Paul (TX), the “Federal Reserve policies benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state.”[5] Congressman Paul went on to say, “Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy.” How many Americans believe the U.S. Congress has not surrendered its constitutional authority over monetary policy to a private corporation? Sadly, most have no idea. Enter the Iran Oil Bourse. Is it possible for the President of the United States of America or the U.S. Congress to announce that the American people need to start preparing for a significant collapse in the U.S. economy because the stability of the U.S. dollar will be in grave danger if enough countries around the world dump the U.S. dollar in favor of the euro once Iran opens the Iran Oil Bourse, without the American people demanding to know how our currency became so vulnerable in the first place? There is no way on God’s green earth that the federal government could make such a statement without the American people getting awfully curious about our woeful money system. Such a statement coming out of Washington DC could ignite widespread panic and an unavoidable demand for the truth; and the government would no longer be able to hide the truth from the American people. With a warning like this coming from the federal government, Americans would run on the banks for sure, trying to withdrawal all their cash, and when they did, the people would quickly discover that only five percent of a bank’s deposits would be available for withdrawal. The banks simply do not have the people’s money on hand. How could the banks have all deposits available for withdrawal when forty-percent of all U.S. (cartel) currency is held by other countries? This is the real threat to the federal government and the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel that both fear. So much so, that they will commit our sons and daughters to fight and die in wars, even under false pretenses, if that’s what it takes to prevent you and me from breaking the shackles that bind us and our labor as collateral to the private corporations that make up the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel. So what about the mainstream media in the United States? What is its role in this scandal that has censored the free press in regards to the Iran Oil Bourse? The media needs to be involved in the cover-up. How could they not be? They are reporting the ‘nuclear threat Iran poses to the U.S.’ story like it’s gospel. Few indeed are the editorial pages around the country that are balking at the Iranian hardliner rhetoric coming out of the White House. Even overtly liberal presses are spreading the ‘Iranian weapons of nuclear destruction’ line. Why? How does the mainstream media fit into a syndicate designed to prevent the average, hardworking, taxpaying American from understanding the authentic source and meaning of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel? That’s fairly simple. The Federal Reserve Banking Cartel members own a significant portion / shares of the mainstream media – that’s why. If researched enough, this fact is not difficult to prove. Thankfully, there is a shortcut to this truth. It is called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR is another non-federal government entity that some say actually governs the United States. There is ample evidence to substantiate that allegation also, but such an examination here would be a distraction. Instead, the focus needs to center on the current list of the CFR Board of Directors. It should be pointed out that nearly every single member of the CFR directly prospers from the Federal Reserve System. Here the list. Council on Foreign Relations - Board of Directors [Accessed January 25, 2006] MONEY - Peter G. Peterson -- Chairman; Senior Chairman and Co-Founder, The Blackstone Group MONEY - Carla A. Hills -- Vice Chairman; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company MONEY - Robert E. Rubin -- Vice Chairman; Director/Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup, Inc. Richard N. Haass – President; Former State Department Director of Policy Planning and lead U.S. official on Afghanistan and Northern Ireland (2001-2003), and principal Middle East advisor to President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993). MONEY - Peter Ackerman -- Managing Director, Rockport Capital, Inc. Fouad Ajami -- M. Khadduri Prof. of Middle Eastern Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University MONEY - Madeleine K. Albright -- Principal, The Albright Group LLC LAWYERS - Charlene Barshefsky -- Senior International Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP MEDIA - Jeffrey Bewkes -- President and Chief Operating Officer, Time Warner, Inc. Henry S. Bienen -- President, Northwestern University Stephen W. Bosworth -- Dean, The Fletcher School, Tufts University MEDIA - Tom Brokaw -- NBC News MEDIA - Lee Cullum -- Columnist, Dallas Morning News LOBBYIST - Kenneth M. Duberstein -- Chairman and CEO, The Duberstein Group, Inc. MONEY - Martin S. Feldstein -- President, National Bureau of Economic Research MONEY - Richard N. Foster -- Managing Partner, Foster Health Partners, LLC Helene D. Gayle -- Director, HIV, TB & Reproductive Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation MONEY - Maurice R. Greenberg -- Chairman & CEO, C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. MONEY - Richard C. Holbrooke --Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC MEDIA - Karen Elliott House -- Publisher, Wall Street Journal MONEY - Michael H. Moskow -- President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Joseph S. Nye, Jr. -- Distinguished Service Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University LAWYERS Ronald L. Olson -- Senior Partner, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP Thomas R. Pickering -- Senior Vice President for International Relations, The Boeing Company MONEY - David M. Rubenstein -- Co-Founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group MONEY - Richard E. Salomon -- Chairman, Mecox Ventures, Inc. Anne-Marie Slaughter -- Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University Joan E. Spero -- President, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Laura D'Andrea Tyson -- Dean, London Business School MEDIA Vin Weber -- Partner, Clark & Weinstock MEDIA - Fareed Zakaria -- Editor, Newsweek International Officers and Directors Emeriti: Leslie H. Gelb (President Emeritus) Maurice R. Greenberg (Honorary Vice Chairman) Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. (Director Emeritus) David Rockefeller (Honorary Chairman) Robert A. Scalapino (Director Emeritus) As you just read, the Board of Directors of the CFR is a tapestry of bankers and media types with a few social intellectuals, institutions, and a defense contractor stitched into the fabric of this farce just for good measure. What the CFR has actually accomplished to favorably influence foreign policy, after all, it calls itself a foreign relations think tank, is not immediately apparent. What is obvious though is that the reason the mainstream media is not reporting on the Iran Oil Bourse is because they are partially owned, or part of the syndicate which cannot afford for the American people to know the truth about their money. To allow the people to know the truth is to provoke we the people to rise up and demand the immediate abolishment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the reclamation / return of our currency to a gold / silver anchor; consequently ending the wealth confiscating scheme of the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax structure, once and for all. This, my friends is the reason why the syndicate suspects are not talking about, or reporting on the Iran Oil Bourse. If confronted, they will deny or attempt to minimize / discredit these allegations. This should come as no surprise. If the suspects involved are good at anything, they’ve proved it is lying to the American people and the world. So what do we do, now knowing what we now know? We must spread the word and relentlessly demand that our local newspapers cover this story for all that it is worth, for if we do not, wars and rumors of wars will persist at our expense. Americans must demand that 2006 candidates for U.S. Congress pledge to abolish the Federal Reserve System if elected or re-elected. ***** Iranian Oil Bourse -- Wikepedia In 2003, Iran started trading with its European and Asian partners using the euro. The three current oil markers (pricing mechanism for oil) are US dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYME) in New York City and the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London. The Iranian Oil Bourse would establish a fourth 'oil marker', denominated by the euro. Planning The Iranian Oil Bourse was reported in the media to have a planned opening date of March 20, 2006 [1](The Iranian line in the sand <<a href="http://republic-news.org/archive/120-repub/120_crawford.htm>,">republic-news.org/archive...ford.htm>,</a> Dan Crawford, The Republic, August 18 ), at the Iranian New Year, Nauroz. The geographical location is expected to be the island of Kish [2]. According to an April 2005 report, the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE), the Wimpole )Consortium and a private staff fund for retired petroleum workers will together form the consortium developing the Iran Petroleum Exchange[3]. In January 2006, Chris Cook of the Wimpole Consortium referred to delays in the process due to the election to the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and subsequent difficulty of appointing a new oil minister acceptable both to the president and parliament[4].(Speaking freely: What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about <<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html>,">www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...k01.html>,</a> Chris Cook, Asia Times </wiki/Asia_Times>/energybulletin.net) Delayed opening Due to "technical glitches", according to the Ministry of Petroleum, the launch was postponed, with no new date set. [5] (A frenzied Persian new year <<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC22Ak01.html)">www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...Ak01.html)</a> Notes The new euro-based oil trade could become a competitor to the two leading oil exchanges -- the New York Mercantile Exchange and London's International Petroleum Exchange -- but a number of international issues facing Iran will require a resolution before the undertaking becomes a success. UPI Venezuela's central bank said it plans to approve the use of the euro to service demand from foreign companies as well as to further distance the country from its dollar dealings. UPI China National Offshore Oil Corp., the country's largest offshore oil producer, completed infrastructure work at a disputed oil and gas field in the East China Sea. CNOOC expects production to start by July, Executive Vice President Yang Hua told a news conference last week. UPI Safehaven, on M3: Oped News. America monopolizes the oil trade. Oil is denominated in dollars and sold on either the NYMEX or London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both owned by Americans. This forces the central banks around the world to maintain huge stockpiles of dollars even though the greenback is currently underwritten by $8 trillion of debt and even though the Bush administration has said that it will perpetuate the deficit-producing tax cuts. America’s currency monopoly is the perfect pyramid-scheme. As long as nations are forced to buy oil in dollars, the United States can continue its profligate spending with impunity. (The dollar now accounts for 68% of global currency reserves up from 51% just a decade ago) The only threat to this strategy is the prospect of competition from an independent oil exchange; forcing the faltering dollar to go nose-to-nose with a more stable (debt-free) currency such as the euro. That would compel central banks to diversify their holdings, sending billions of dollars back to America and ensuring a devastating cycle of hyper-inflation. Oped News There are peaceful solutions to this dilemma, but not if the Bush administration insists on hiding behind the moronic deception of terrorism or imaginary nuclear weapons programs. Bush needs to come clean with the American people about the real nature of the global energy crisis and stop invoking Bin Laden and WMD to defend American aggression. We need a comprehensive energy strategy, (including government funding for conservation projects, alternative energy-sources, and the development of a new line of “American-made” hybrid vehicles) candid negotiations with Iran to regulate the amount of oil they will sell in euros per year (easing away from the dollar in an orderly way) and a collective “international” approach to energy consumption and distribution (under the auspices of the UN General Assembly) U.S. regarded as most stable government, and many countries hold U.S. Treasury Bills in their reserves, but may dump those if the dollar weakened too much. As the value of the dollar weakens, imported goods become more expensive. TraderDaily.com Asia Times According to the most recent data from the US Treasury Department, OPEC members have parked only a skimpy $120 billion in direct dollar holdings, which are almost equally split between equities and American debt paper. This is a clear indication that oil producers are investing their windfalls elsewhere. The yield spread between US and EU debt papers in favor of the EU is another hint where the petrodollars might be heading. Asia Times The proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. Last July, Heydar Mostakhdemin-Hosseini, who heads the board of directors of the Iranian Stock Exchange council, said authorities had agreed in principle to the establishment of the IOB, where petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded. The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and most deals will be conducted via the Internet. Experts from London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:50 pm

By the way, Tarpley wrote the Bush book, I believe, with Chaitkin, who is still a Larouchite as far as I know. Please correct if I'm wrong. I've been fairly interested, Byrne, in the machinations and strange bedfellows that the Russia v. "Atlantic Nations" drama has created...including...ta da! Larouche. Somewhere around here as we were discussing Dugin, etc, I posted a piece that talked about how Russian intel was studying western groups such as Larouche's hoping to influence or manipulate them but ending up adopting them. And if you google awhile you'll see both Larouche's showing up at events discussing the Russian future, etc. So there's some kind of connection there...but it's nebulous to me. Here's my real live, unable to prove, speculation. Larouche, Hubbard, Newman (the real power behind Lenora Fulani), Pettie (of the finders) are all of a similar age and likely part of similar projects to create state sponsored (or at the VERY least, state OBSERVED) politico-cults for the following reasons: 1. Observing and infiltrating legit movements 2. Providing other forms of intel (particularly the Finders and Larouche, both of whom had fairly sophisticated intel networks. ) 3. Provide disinfo by jumping into legitimate areas of opposition, providing excellent "research" but muddying the waters with extraneous b.s. or else simply discrediting factual info by virtue of who they are.. 4. Provide experiments in social control and manipulation, to be reproduced in other forms and in other countries, and applied to more mainstream religions as well, including, of course, Islam. This may not be some overarching conspiracy, but the similarities of these folks are quite striking. Newman and Larouche even worked together for a brief period. The emphases of each group are different. There are other possible players. Some speculate Larouche works in part for the Catholic church, hence his emphasis on anti-Masonic and anti population control issues. (I am also very concerned about pop. redux/eugenic movements, but I avoid Larouche's writings). Since there was clear interaction between larouche and the Christic institute, which was run by the guy who was former counsel to the Jesuits in the United States, maybe there's something to this. So that's my basic idea of what's up, here. I think all of them have state involvement at some level. And Larouche is particularly of concern to me because he also gets right into the middle of the RA/mc stuff...contaminating as he goes. Having Chaitkin work with deCamp on the Franklin Coverup research makes me REALLY nervous, despite the large amount of evidence there. Please see the last few paragraphs as the speculation they are. I don't claim to know this is true, but I do know the history of all these folks, and I trust none of them, even the dead ones. There are just such similarities, that even without the overt history of anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia and outright fascism...and even without the history of beating up leftists with baseball bats, I'd still be concerned about Larouche. OH, that and the fact that I've read plenty from ex members...and it's just as culty as Scientology and the Finders. Newman's group is also a cult. And we can get into what that means, but know that I use that term with a particular meaning: authoritarian control system employing mind control techniques to insure compliance of its members. When I first started posting here, when I found something was connected to Larouche I simply posted that fact. I was shocked to learn that so many here, knowledgeable in so much conspiracy theory, had no idea about his history. I thought it was simply well known. Check the data dump for more on Larouche.

by **greencrow0** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:06 am

This seems to make sense. I got it from today's waynemadsenreport.com. Wayne says the recent accusation against Russia of passing US secrets to Iraq during the 2003 Invasion is connected with the U.S's future desire to nuke Iran and is a <blockquote>Quote:<hr>cover their butts<hr></blockquote> in advance re the potential of causing fatalities at Iran's nuclear facility. So the Iran Attack is still in offing...stages but just needs a bit more prep work. ************************* <blockquote>Quote:<hr>March 25, 2006 -- The Pentagon's role as a source of media disinformation. First it was the Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, which morphed into the Office of Special Plans. Both served as conduits for neo-con propaganda spewed forth by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Heritage Foundation, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Hudson Institute, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), among others prior to the invasion of Iraq. Now the Pentagon has issued an "unclassified report" stating that in the lead up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Russia obtained war plans and planned U.S. troop movements from “inside the American Central Command.” The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) denied the charge, stating that "similar, baseless accusations concerning Russia’s intelligence have been made more than once." The Pentagon cited as its source two captured Iraqi documents that describe Russian penetration of the US Central Command in Qatar. However, the Pentagon's story later changed. The revised story stated the Russian obtained the war plans from signals intelligence intercepts of pre-war U.S. military communications. In either case, the citing of "captured" Iraqi documents has been used in the past to falsely implicate various anti-war international politicians with being in league with Saddam's "Oil for Food" program. Many of these "captured" documents were forgeries emanating from notorious Iraqi con man Ahmad Chalabi. Bogus Niger government documents were forged by a neo-con cabal based in Rome, Washington, and Jerusalem to justify an attack on Iraq based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The information contained in the two "secret" Iraqi documents could have been obtained from any number of open sources, including Jane's Defence Weekly. The "sic" appearing next to "special forces unit 'Papa'" in the purported Iraqi documents is a clue to a forgery. The standard NATO/DoD phonetic code for the letter "P" is "Papa." Why the authors would indicate a possible misspelling of Papa in the document is curious unless its because the real authors include some of our most noted neo-con draft dodgers who are unfamiliar with U.S. and NATO military nomenclatures. The two secret Iraqi documents are handwritten and contain no official government seal or stamps, another clear indication of a forgery. Putin and Russian government: Latest targets of the neo-cons and likely forged documents The neo-con stranglehold on the Pentagon continues to permit this cabal of provocateurs and dual loyalists to pump out false charges in an attempt to damage relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin as Russia continues to push for negotiations with Iran and lay the possible groundwork for Russian casualties at Iranian nuclear facilities in the event of war with Iran. Neo-cons would argue that such casualties were legitimate considering previous Russian support for Saddam against the United States. In fact, the Pentagon neo-cons now have more power than ever considering the current presence of anti-Russian neo-con-influenced governments in Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia. Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski, an AEI alum and colleague of Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen, is married to the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum. All four are virulently anti-Putin, especially since Putin began cracking down on the Russian oligarchs who looted the USSR's treasury and resources and made themselves instant billionaires, at the expense of the peoples of the former Soviet Union. Over 70 percent of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs carry Israeli passports. Ukraine President Viktor Yuschenko's wife, Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko, is an American citizen and held positions in the Reagan White House that were directed against "the evil empire." She was, and remains, close to the leading neo-con war hawks of the Reagan years, including Perle, Ledeen, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Ken Adelman. Georgia's President, Mikhail Saakashvili, in an anti-Putin U.S.-trained lawyer who ousted his predecessor in a U.S.-financed and supported coup backed by oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon Mobil. In addition to the offices of AEI, AIPAC, Hudson, WINEP, and Heritage, in addition to the Pentagon, the embassies of Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia in Washington have become virtual neo-con nesting places, working overtime to formulate all sorts of anti-Russian propaganda aimed at destabilizing Russia and toppling Putin. They are assisted in these efforts by the US Mission to the United Nations, which under arch neo-con John Bolton, has become a favorite off-site meeting place for Washington-based neo-cons right in the middle of Manhattan.<hr></blockquote>

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:36 am

Having Chaitkin work with deCamp on the Franklin Coverup research makes me REALLY nervous, despite the large amount of evidence there. More on this, please, DE, maybe in a separate thread. That whole Franklin thing has felt funny to me, couldn't put my finger on it. Chaitkin was involved in that? Chaitkin was a Larouchite? More, more more, sources please. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/25/06 10:09 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:23 am

Okay chiggerbit...I'm posting another thread but it's not real thorough. I'm taking this one too far afield. Even though I resurrected it, I was wrong in my assumptions about the Iranian Oil Bourse. That was clearly a real thing. I do think that the scary predictions ARE part of a typical pattern, but the Oil Bourse stuff surely is real and relevant.

by **Byrne** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:14 pm

Starman, Excellent research & commentary, as always. Quote So the Iran Attack is still in offing...stages but just needs a bit more prep work. probably true - if (& when) the IOB gets closer to implementation, the heat on Iran will increase again. This seems to be borne out by a stalemate of sorts at the IAEA regarding the 'Ian issue'. Having briefly checked the IAEA website, I can see no indications for any next meeting to discuss the 'Iran issue'. From a news report <a href="http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060322-091242-9139r" target="top">here</a>, headlined 'Deadlocked Security Council puts off formal Iran meeting', it is reported that the meeting of the UN Security Council's five veto-holding countries was canceled in New York, on March 21. There appears to be a dis-agreement between the British-French position on Iran & the Russian position. From the report<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Earlier a Western diplomat who requested anonymity said that the formal council meeting was postponed to take into account Russian objections to the Franco-British draft. He added that no new date has been set for a formal meeting. "The Russians want a more general text, and no reference to the Iranian program being a threat to international peace and security, which could imply that the council might have to resort to sanctions," the Western diplomat said. With Western countries suspecting Iran of seeking to acquire atomic arms, the council is debating a response to Tehran's defiance to demands that it halt uranium enrichment activities and open its doors to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Western powers see adoption of the Franco-British non-binding statement by the 15-member council as the first step in a graduated response that could ultimately lead to sanctions against Tehran. But Russia and China, which have close economic and energy ties with Tehran, oppose sanctions and insist on the IAEA retaining the lead role in the issue. Diplomats in Vienna said that if the council fails to agree on the non-binding Franco-British text, the US delegation might push for a tough UN resolution invoking possible sanctions under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. The aim would be to force Russia and China either to veto the resolution or to abstain and thus allow it to go through if it can get the required nine votes. <hr></blockquote> Also, <a href="http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/22guest1.htm" target="top">this article</a> written by a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of the Government of India, highlights the wrangling that has been going on.

by **Byrne** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:32 am

I see there are issues with currency/trade with China that loom on the horizon. <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1739428,00.html" target="top">source</a> US-China trade war looms <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Senators' protectionist anger over $200bn trade gap puts pressure on Beijing and risks damaging future strategic relations Heather Stewart, economics correspondent Sunday March 26, 2006 The Observer American senators could vote this week to slap tariffs of 27.5 per cent on all Chinese goods, amid a rising clamour of protectionist anger on Capitol Hill. The sponsors of the so-called Schumer-Graham Bill were in Beijing last week - Chuck Schumer's first official trip overseas in 25 years - to press home the message that China's cheap currency gives it an unfair advantage over the Americans. Schumer, a Democrat who represents New York, and his Republican co-sponsor, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have been promised a vote on the measure by the end of March. Beijing announced a revaluation of the yuan last year, but so far it has only been allowed to appreciate against the dollar within tight limits - too slowly for Schumer, who said in Shanghai on Friday: 'We are not going to give up until we've seen a plan [from China].' The US ran a trade deficit of more than $200bn with China last year, as shoppers sucked in low-cost consumer goods from the fast-growing economy. Like Japan in the Eighties, China is the target of protectionist rhetoric. 'There's a growing antipathy to free trade in Congress, and the Bush administration is fully on board,' says Dan Ikenson of free market think-tank the Cato Institute. Treasury Secretary John Snow has repeatedly pressed the case for the Chinese to float their currency. Schumer and Graham will hold talks with colleagues in Congress to decide whether to press their bill to a vote. 'The jury's out,' Schumer said. 'We're going to make a decision next week. We're not saying yes, we're not saying no.' A third Senator, Iowan Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has suggested he could table a compromise bill that would call for harsher scrutiny of the Chinese by the US administration, without imposing tariffs immediately. Ikenson predicted that the senators would back away from making a move this week and await the outcome of a state visit by Chinese president Hu Jintao in April, but with many other anti-China bills also tabled in Congress, the pressure for action is mounting. He compared the rhetoric in Washington to furious objections to the takeover of US ports by Dubai Ports World last month. 'I look at the Dubai Ports situation - Congress turned into a mob. Everyone wanted to be seen as doing something about it. I think the same dynamic could take hold on the trade issue.' Some analysts have compared the bill with the infamous 'Smoot-Hawley' tariffs of 1930, which kicked off a tit-for-tat transatlantic trade war and helped turn the stock market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression. Phillip Swagel of the American Enterprise Institute said that unless Schumer drew back from the brink this week, he could become known as the Smoot of the 21st century: 'He would go down in history as the man who crashed the US economy.' He said the anti-China senators were likely to 'declare victory', having delivered their message to the Chinese in person. But Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, who met the senators - and Beijing officials - in China last week, said the rhetoric on Capitol Hill was already damaging a fruitful trading relationship. 'China is deeply troubled over the outright hostility from an increasingly xenophobic US Congress,' he said. He said the trade deficit was the flipside of America's insatiable demand for foreign goods and its lack of savings. The US consumes more than it earns and borrows the difference, much of it from Asian central banks, including China's. 'The danger is that the United States views China with a growing sense of distrust - poisoning the chances for strategic co-operation and squandering one of the greatest opportunities of globalisation,' Roach warned. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao made it clear that he has no intention of acceding to US politicians' demands. 'It is unfair to make China a scapegoat for structural problems facing the US economy,' he said. China has repeatedly said that it plans to float its currency eventually, but it fears the impact of 'big bang' flotation on its fragile financial sector. Ikenson warned that by threatening punitive sanctions, America would exhaust Beijing's goodwill, which it might need for tougher geopolitical issues in the future: 'If we continue to hound them about their currency, we're not going to have enough left to push them on issues that really matter.' <hr></blockquote>

March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis?

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

Connecting the dots

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

Re: March 20-26: Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis

US Currency/trade Issues with China

Who is online