I agree that there does not have to be a single event to mark the end of the dollar regime. However Mr. Bill and others are correct that it is going strong at this time. The total net amount of US assets purchased may be $1 trillion in 2005. Whne I projected that figure for 2005, many thought that figure was unrealistically high.

Ironically, the higher amount of capital inflow reflects an increasing reliance on foreigners, and is a sign of weakness - just as increasing US oil imports indicate a weakening structural mismatch between oil production and demand


The best monthly report is the Treasury International Capital Data
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js3019.htm
This information is voluntarily supplied by foreign countries and may contain some inaccuracies.

On a weekly basis, you can check at the Federal Reserve's figures weekly after 4:30 PM NYC time. Please note that they only include amounts of FCB purchases which the physically keep. I estimate the Fed has about 2/3rds of total FCB purchases in custody.

Go to
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H41/Current/
To get the latest weekly info, and look for "Marketable securities held in custody for foreign official and international accounts"

Excellent links. Thanks! I usually just see the aggregate no.s on Reuters or Bloomberg when they are announced, but nice to know where to find the source. Cheers.

Percisely. About a year ago a colleague in Ireland (Nunan) wrote a very cogent summary of the main issues. He lists several events from 1999 to 2004 that illustrate this conflict between World Reserve Currencies. I expect the 2005 -2010 period will simply accelerate current trends, with Iran being one more important element that removes the main technical obstacle to a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades.

Given the geopolitcal tensions surrounding depleting hydrocarbons, and the neoconservative project for US global domination, the timing could not be worse for the global community. Hence, I also think Nunan's article warrants inclusion on this thread:
_________________________

Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict
Cóilín Nunan

http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm


The current political and economic rift between the US and the European Union has been called a clash of civilizations. Its major cause is a struggle over the gains to be had from producing the world's leading currency

No observer of the lead-up to the war in Iraq and its aftermath could have failed to notice that the level of cooperation between Europe and America was extremely low. France and Germany were very strong opponents of the US/UK invasion and even after the war was declared over, disagreements persisted over the lifting of sanctions and how Iraq should be run. So was this just a one-off tiff or was it a symptom of deeper flaws in the relationship? I believe that the war on Iraq illustrated for the first time that continental Europe, led by France and Germany, no longer wishes to follow the Americans politically, although what has been termed a 'clash of civilisations'1 is probably better viewed as a 'clash of economies'.

While disagreements over the US trade barriers on steel imports or the European restrictions on imports of American genetically modified crops have attracted widespread comment, the most intense economic rivalry of all has received far less media attention than it perhaps should: this is the rivalry between the dollar and the euro for the position of world reserve currency, a privileged status that has been held by the dollar ever since the Bretton Woods agreement nearly 60 years ago.

At present, approximately two thirds of world trade is conducted in dollars and two thirds of central banks' currency reserves are held in the American currency which remains the sole currency used by international institutions such as the IMF. This confers on the US a major economic advantage: the ability to run a trade deficit year after year. It can do this because foreign countries need dollars to repay their debts to the IMF, to conduct international trade and to build up their currency reserves. The US provides the world with these dollars by buying goods and services produced by foreign countries, but since it does not have a corresponding need for foreign currency, it sells far fewer goods and services in return, i.e. the US always spends more than it earns, whereas the rest of the world always earns more than it spends. This US trade deficit has now reached extraordinary levels, with the US importing 50% more goods and services than it exports. So long as the dollar remains the dominant international currency the US can continue consuming more than it produces and, for example, build up its military strength while simultaneously affording tax cuts.

Getting a share of this economic free lunch has been one of the motivations, and perhaps the main motivation, behind setting up the euro2 . Were the euro to become a reserve currency equal to, or perhaps even instead of, the dollar, countries would reduce their dollar holdings while building up their euro savings. Another way of putting this would be to say that Eurozone countries would be able to reduce their subsidy to American consumption and would find that other countries were now subsidising Eurozone consumption instead.

A move away from the dollar towards the euro could, on the other hand, have a disastrous effect on the US economy as the US would no longer be able to spend beyond its means. Worse still, the US would have to become a net currency importer as foreigners would probably seek to spend back in the US a large proportion of the estimated three trillion dollars which they currently own. In other words, the US would have to run a trade surplus, providing the rest of the world with more goods and services than it was receiving in return. A rapid and wholesale move to the euro might even lead to a dollar crash as everyone sought to get rid of some, or all, of their dollars at the same time. But that is an outcome that no-one, not even France or Germany, is seeking because of the huge effect it would have on the world economy. Europe would much prefer to see a gradual move to a euro-dollar world, or even a euro-dominated one.


It turns out that there is a small group of countries which is playing the arbiter in this global contest. These are the world's oil exporters, in particular OPEC and Russia. Ever since the days when the US dominated world oil production, sales of oil and natural gas on international markets have been exclusively denominated in dollars. This was partly a natural state of affairs since, up until the early 1950s, the US accounted for half or more of the world's annual oil production. The tendency to price in dollars was additionally reinforced by the Bretton Woods agreement which established the IMF and World Bank and adopted the dollar as the currency for international loans.

The vast majority of the world's countries are oil importers and, since oil is such a crucial commodity, the need to pay for it in dollars encourages these countries keep the majority of their foreign currency reserves in dollars not only to be able to buy oil directly but also to protect the value of their own currencies from falling against the dollar. Because a sudden devaluation of a country's currency against the dollar would lead to a jump in oil prices and a possible economic crisis, every country's central bank needs dollar reserves so as to be able to buy its own currency on the foreign exchange markets when its value needs to be supported.

The fact that oil sales and loans from the IMF are dollar-denominated also encourages poorer countries to denominate their exports in dollars as this minimises the risk of losses through any fluctuations in the value of the dollar. The knock-on effect of this is that, since many of these exports are essential raw materials which richer countries need to import, their denomination in dollars reinforces the need for rich countries to keep their own currency reserves in dollars.

While the denomination of oil sales is not a subject which is frequently discussed in the media, its importance is certainly well understood by governments. For example, when in 1971 President Nixon took the US off the gold standard, OPEC did consider moving away from dollar oil pricing, as dollars no longer had the guaranteed value they once did. The US response was to do various secret deals with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s to ensure that the world's most important oil exporter stuck with the dollar3 . What the Saudis did, OPEC followed. More recently, in June 2003, the Prime Minister of Malaysia publicly encouraged his country's oil and gas exporters to move from the dollar to the euro. The European and American reactions were polar opposites: the EU's Energy Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, welcomed the suggestion, saying that 'in the future the euro is [going to be] taking a place in the international markets in general as the money of exchange' and that this was 'a matter of realism'4 . Her counterpart in the US, the director of the Energy Information Administration, Guy Caruso, said that he couldn't see 'any particular merit' in the move and that over the long run 'the dollar's always won out'5 . Either way, Malaysia is only a relatively minor oil exporter, so what it does can only have a very limited effect. A switch by a major oil exporter would be of far greater significance.

The first country to actually make the switch was a very important oil exporter indeed: Iraq, in November 2000 6 ,7. Before the war in Iraq began, some observers, myself included, argued that this might well be a major reason for the US desire to invade and the strong Franco-German opposition to the invasion 8 ,9 . Corroborating evidence included the apparent influence which loyalty (or lack thereof) to the dollar seemed to have on the US attitude towards other OPEC members. Iran had been talking of selling its own oil for euros 6 ,10 and was subsequently included in George Bush's 'axis of evil'. Venezuela, another important oil exporter, had started bartering some of its oil, thus avoiding the use of the dollar, and was encouraging OPEC to do likewise11 - and the US was widely suspected in having played a part in the attempted coup against the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. {April 2002-WC}

Semi-official confirmation that petro-currency rivalry was at the heart of the split between France and Germany, on the one hand, and the US, on the other, was provided by Howard Fineman, the chief political correspondent for Newsweek, in an article he wrote in April 2003, in the aftermath of the war. The Europeans and Americans were then arguing over whether the UN's oil-for-food programme in Iraq should remain in place or not. Using the term 'clash of civilisations' to describe the divide which was developing, Fineman explained that the disagreement had little to do with the French calls for the search for weapons of mass destruction to resume and for sanctions to remain in place until the search was complete.

Instead, Fineman said, it was mainly about the dollar vs the euro. Citing White House officials and a presidential aide, he explained that the dispute between the two continents was really about 'who gets to sell - and buy - Iraqi oil, and what form of currency will be used to denominate the value of the sales. That decision, in turn, will help decide who controls Iraq, which, in turn, will represent yet another skirmish in a growing global economic conflict. We want a secular, American-influenced pan-ethnic entity of some kind to control the massive oil fields (Iraq's vast but only real source of wealth). We want that entity to be permitted to sell the oil to whomever it wants, denominated in dollars.' Fineman concluded his article by confidently predicting that future Iraqi oil sales would be switched back to dollars1 . {Note: I used an exert fom Fineman's article in my book to highlight the fact that this was the ONE and ONLY example in the US mainstream media that honestly discussed the petroeuro issue circa 2001-2003...and now, 2.5 years later the European media has discussed this issue at depth, but not in the US media...I find that interesting and disconcerting }

Fineman's White House sources would appear to have been reliable as that is precisely what has happened: when Iraqi oil exports resumed in June of last year, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only12 13 . It was also decided that the billions of Iraqi euros which were being held in a euro account, controlled by the UN under the oil-for-food programme, were to be transferred into the Development Fund for Iraq, a dollar account controlled by the US13 14 15 .

Furthermore, Youssef Ibrahim, a former senior Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and energy editor on the Wall Street Journal, who is a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, has called Iraq's switch to the euro 'another reason' for the war, saying that a general move by oil producers to the euro would be a 'catastrophe' for the US16 .

America's willingness to use violence to defend its economic interests does not seem to have reduced the number of oil exporters considering switching to the euro as they recognise that their use of the dollar enables the US to build up its military strength. In addition to Malaysia, Indonesia has the switch under consideration17 while Iran has been shifting its currency reserves into euros. Moreover, according to the Vice-President of the Iranian central bank, it has actually sold some of its oil to Europe for euros and is encouraging members of an Asian trade organisation, the Asian Clearing Union, to pay for Iranian oil in the European currency18 . Along with Malaysia, it is also at the forefront of efforts to establish a new gold-backed currency, the Islamic Gold Dinar, to be used in international trade amongst Muslim countries instead of both the dollar and the euro19 . In a further development, in June 2004, Iran announced that it had plans to establish an oil-trading market for Middle Eastern and OPEC producers which could threaten the dominance of London's International Petroleum Exchange and New York's Nymex20 . Such a move could help remove some of the technical difficulties that exist with a switch away from dollar-denomination of oil sales.


It is therefore not surprising to find that, just as with Iraq, the European Union and the US are dealing with Iran in very different ways. While the EU has been holding trade negotiations with Iran21 and involved in dialogue about its nuclear programme, the US has refused to get involved in direct talks with the Iranian government which it views as 'evil'. The American Enterprise Institute, a highly influential American 'think tank', has in fact been actively calling for 'regime change'22 and, although this policy has yet to be officially endorsed by the Bush administration, in July 2004 it was claimed in the British press that a senior official of the Bush administration had indicated that, if re-elected, Bush would intervene in the internal affairs of Iran in an attempt to overturn the Iranian government23 24 .

European enthusiasm for the 'petroeuro' also appears undampened by the US takeover of Iraq. Since the war, the European Union has been actively encouraging Russia, another opponent of the US invasion, to move to euro oil and gas sales. In October 2003, during a joint press conference with Germany's Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder, the Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia was thinking about selling its oil for euros. A few days later, the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, said, after a summit between Russia and the European Union, that Russia was now drawn to having its imports and exports denominated in euros25 26 .

In December 2003, speculation about the future roles of the dollar and the euro increased when OPEC Secretary General Alvaro Silva, a former Venezuelan oil minister, said that the organisation was now considering trading in euros or in a basket of currencies other than the dollar, as the US currency was declining in value27 . Although a few days later the Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi said that OPEC would not be discussing a switch to the euro at its next meeting (comments reinforced by the Qatari President of OPEC and the Algerian oil minister28 ), articles discussing a possible move continued to appear in the media29 30 and the euro's value against the dollar soared. Despite the speculation, no decision to move to the euro was taken at OPEC's meeting in early February 2004 and thereafter the euro's value fell back again.

In fact, close inspection of the dollar-euro exchange rate shows that since the euro's introduction in January 1999, petro-currency rivalry appears to have played an important part in swinging the rate one way or the other (see Graph). The markets, it seems, have noticed the importance of what is happening. On the other hand, the lack of an open discussion of the issues suggests that politicians and bankers are keen to move ahead with their plans with little or no explanation to the general public.

{see graph in original article}

http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurof ... .html#1999
1) January 1999: launch of the euro.

2) January 1999 ­ Oct 2000: euro in "bear market² versus the dollar.

3) November 2000: Iraq switches oil sales to euro. Euro's fall versus the dollar is halted.

4) April 2002: senior OPEC representative gives speech in which he states that OPEC would consider possibility of selling oil in euros.

5) April 2002 to May 2003: euro in "bull market" versus the dollar.

6) June 2003: US switches Iraqi oil sales back to dollar.

7) June 2003 to September 2003: euro falls versus dollar.

8 ) October 2003 to early February 2004: statements by Russian and OPEC politicians/officials that switch to euro for oil sales is being considered. Euro's value versus the dollar increases.

9) 10 February 2004: OPEC meets and no decision to switch to euro is taken.

10) February 2004 to May 2004: euro falls versus the dollar.

11) June 2004: Iran announces intention to establish oil-trading market to rival those of London and New York.

12) June 2004: euro's value versus the dollar begins to increase again.


Should we not, however, be debating more openly what kind (or kinds) of international financial structure(s) we want to adopt, since the question has potentially huge implications for the stability of the world economy and for peace and stability in oil-exporting countries? A good starting point for such a debate would be the recognition that no country or countries should be allowed to dominate the system by controlling the issuance of the currency or currencies used. Similarly fundamental would be to prevent any country from running a persistent trade surplus or deficit so as to avoid the build up of unjust subsidies, unpayable debts and economic instability. At Bretton Woods, John Maynard Keynes, who understood how important these two conditions were, proposed a system which would have met them, but his proposal was rejected in favour of the dollar31 .

The dollar, though, is no longer a stable, reliable currency: the IMF has warned that the US trade deficit is so bad that its currency could collapse at any time32 . Will we really have to wait for a full-blown dollar crisis before a public debate about creating a just and sustainable trading system can begin?

References
1. Howard Fineman, 'In Round 2, it's the dollar vs. euro', April 23 2003, Newsweek, http://www.msnbc.com/news/904353.asp?0s ... 21F4&cp1=1

2. Anon., 'Will the euro rule the roost?', January 1 1999, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/the_l ... /inside_em u/225434.stm
3. David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets, Cornell University Press, 1999

4. Anon., 'EU says oil could one day be priced in euros', 16 June 2003, Reuters

5. Irene Kwek, 'EIA Says Oil Price Switch To Euro From Dollar Unlikely', 16 June 2003, Dow Jones Newswires

6. Recknagel, Charles, 'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro', November 1 2000,Radio Free Europe, http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/ ... 160846.asp

7. Faisal Islam, 'When will we buy oil in euros?', February 23 2003, The Observer, http://www.observer.co.uk/business/stor ... 67,00.html

8. William Clark, 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth', January 2003, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

9. Cóilín Nunan, 'Oil, currency and the war on Iraq', January 2003, http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

10. Anon., 'Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments', Alexander Oil and Gas, September 5 2002, http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm

11. Hazel Henderson, 'Globocop v. Venezuela's Chavez: Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development', April 2002, InterPress Service, http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop% ... Chavez.htm

12. Carola Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, 'Iraq returns to international oil market', June 5 2003, Financial Times

13. Coalition Provisional Authority Regulation Number 2, http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/ind ... egulations

14. UN Security Council Resolution 1483, http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

15. Judy Aita, 'U.N. Transfers Oil-for-Food Program to CPA, Iraqi Officials Nov 22', November 2003, Washington File, http://www.cpa-iraq.org/audio/20031122_ ... m-post.htm

16. Catherine Belton, 'Why not price oil in euros?', October 10 2003, Moscow Times

17. Kazi Mahmood, 'Economic Shift Could Hurt U.S.-British Interests In Asia', March 30 2003, IslamOnline.net

18. C. Shivkumar, 'Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms', June 16 2003, http://www.blonnet.com/2003/06/17/stori ... 380500.htm

19. Anon, 'Malaysia, Iran discuss the use of gold dinar', July 3 2003, Asia Times, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ ... 3Ae01.html

20. Terry Macalister, 'Iran takes on west's control of oil trading', June 16 2004, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor ... 44,00.html

21. Hooman Peimani, 'EU and Iran talk trade, not war', June 7 2003, Asia Times, www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF07AK02.html

22. Guy Dinmore, 'US lobbyists tune in for regime change in Iran', December 5 2003, Financial Times

23. Michael Binyon and Bronwen Maddox, 'US sets sights on toppling Iran regime', July 17 2004, The Times

24. Jennifer Johnston, 'Regime change in Iran now in Bush's sights', July 18 2004, The Sunday Herald, www.sundayherald.com/43461

25. Lisa Jucca and Melissa Akin, 'Europe Presses Russia on Euro', October 20 2003, Moscow Times

26. Simon Nixon, 'What's that in euros?', October 18 2003, The Spectator, www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-10-18&id=3619

27. Anon., 'OPEC may trade oil in euros to compensate for dollar decline', December 9 2003, Associated Press, http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_ ... 020008.htm

28. Anon., 'Saudi Arabia: Dollars only please', December 13 2003, Reuters, http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/13/news/in ... /bc.energy .saudi.reut/

29. Patrick Brethour, 'OPEC mulls move to euro for pricing crude oil', January 12 2004, Globe and Mail, http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/sto ... /Business/

30. Anon., 'To euro or not: should oil pricing ditch the dollar?', February 9 2004, AFP

31. Michael Rowbottom, Goodbye America! Globalisation, Debt and the Dollar Empire, Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000

32. Charlotte Denny and Larry Elliott, 'IMF warns trade gap could bring down dollar', September 19 2003, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor ... 93,00.html


{trying sans-quote box for scroll free reading; EE}

Mr. Clark,

What bookstores are selling your book on their shelves? Or does one have to order it on-line? Do you know what the price range is?

Euric,
I just bought a copy from Borders, but they had to order it. With a 20% store coupon it cost $14.36 new. Store inventory can be checked online.

....today I found this nice, succinct review of the book, just an fyi for those who have expressed interest...


http://www.hopedance.org/new/book_reviews/r160.html

PETRODOLLAR WARFARE:
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
by William R. Clark
(New Society, 2005)

If you haven’t guessed from the title, this book is about oil. More specifically it’s about oil, neo-conservatism, U.S military power and where the three intersect. If you’re thinking that could make for some not-so-cheerful reading, you might be correct, but Petrodollar Warfare can also be described as an insightful book that should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand the war in Iraq. And though the subject of how neo-conservatives mapped out and implemented their strategy for oil and empire may seem dark and depressing, the book points out the obvious fact that we have the option of pursuing a different course to secure our energy needs.

Petrodollar Warfare started as an online essay written by William Clark in 2003 which won an award from Project Censored. The book expands on Clark’s original theme that the U.S economy relies heavily on the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, accepted by the major oil producers and thus in demand by every nation that purchases petroleum. That dynamic was temporarily upset in October, 2000, when a leader by the name of Saddam Hussein abruptly announced that the euro would replace dollars as the currency for Iraq’s oil sales. The decision was largely ignored by the mainstream media but, according to Clark, may have contributed to Hussein’s downfall.

Clark’s tale of oil and empire is an important one and surprisingly underreported. He explains how the United States has, in effect, switched from a gold standard to an oil standard which relies on the willingness of major oil producers to price oil in dollars. As the U.S has acquired more and more debt, it has begun to rely less on the traditional “fundamentals” which sustained our economy, and more on the petrodollar system. We have also begun to rely more on “hard power,” another term for unilateral military action. Clark suggests that our heavy reliance on the petrodollar system means that a sudden shift to the euro by oil producers could cause massive inflation in the U.S.

Clark’s story of oil and empire would not be complete without mentioning the neo-conservatives who now make U.S policy. He explains how these disciples of Leo Strauss and Machiavelli went from outsiders writing obscure policy papers to insiders after the 2000 election. And of course, the events of 9/11/2001 provided an opportunity to test many of their theories.

While no one will accuse Petrodollar Warfare of being an overly optimistic book, it’s obvious throughout that there is a flip-side to the neo-conservative strategy. For example, Clark notes that instead of an energy policy that seeks to maintain a lifestyle of excessive consumption by force if necessary, we could pursue an energy policy which includes some sacrifice but also new possibilities and innovation. And the U.S could have sought to address Iraq’s switch to the euro and perceived threats from other nations seeking oil contracts in Iraq as a multilateral compromise.

The portrait that emerges again and again in this book is one of a nation not meeting the challenges of the future. There is no doubt that increasing demand for fossil fuels and declining reserves will require sacrifices in the future. The question is how will we meet that challenge. Will we use militarism and unilateral action to maintain our status in the world or will we make changes in our lifestyle while at the same time embracing the opportunities of a less fossil-fuel-dependent world.

William Clark has done an excellent job of researching a subject that has somehow slipped under the radar screen of our national discourse. But as the Iraq war drags on, it is more important than ever to have a clear understanding of the geo-political considerations which may be driving U.S policy. Mr. Clark’s narrative is an important contribution to that effort.

Brad Johnson is a frequent contributor and book reviewer.

Great book for those interested in the financial side of Peak Oil. We can all reduce our reliance on oil, but we all use dollars as the medium of exchange here in the US. The implications of this book could affect us far more. The fall of the petrodollar would be a real mess. It seems a real possibility after reading this book.

This is a transcript of Part One of Webster Griffin Tarpley’s interview on KPFA’s Guns and Butter radio program.

This is a transcript of Part Two of Webster Griffin Tarpley’s interview on KPFA’s Guns and Butter radio program

Excerpted from a lengthy interview in April of 2005:

Petrodollar:

Do you plan to have your book published in other languages? Don't you think you will have a better chance of getting your message across and making a difference if people in countries outside the US or English speaking world had access to the facts you present?

It would be interesting if your book was translated into Farsi and Arabic and promoted in the heart of the OPEC land. Even into Spanish and Portuguese and sold in South America. The petrodollar system is the main reason the countries of South and Central America have been so poor for the past few decades and have never been able to able to rise to the level of the American middle class. Many once they realize the dollar was the reason they suffered so much they will help its demise even more.

Every country that strives to live the middle class dream and can't because the petrodollar keeps them down would benefit from the facts you present. There are 6 plus megapeople in the world and they all need to get the message.

is oil being priced by iran in the borse, a reason why all this 'attack iran ' chatter is happening ? or is it to take over their oil fields because of PO ? or both ?

armageddon, please do a search, the Iran bourse has been discussed many times.

But, in a word, yes. If Iran was going to build 4000 nuclear reactors to create plutonium to build a zillion nukes under the sole command of one black-turbaned looney, there'd be less trouble.

"It's the petrodollar, stoopid."
(not directed at you armageddon)

PS IRAN HAS NO NUKES, IS AT LEAST 10 YEARS AWAY. DON'T BELIEVE THE MSM, AND HAS BEEN INSPECTED HEAVILY BY THE IAEA. THEY CAN'T BUILD THEM, ITS JUST A SMOKESCREEN.

if pakistan and india have nukes, why is it so hard to realize that iran has nukes also ? all the former soviet union scientists had to go somewhere. I definately believe iran has nukes while we speak. If you have the money and desire ( which iran has ), a nuke would be easy to obtain.

I agree with Armageddon on this one. Iran already processes nuclear weapons. with their oil wealth they can buy the nuclear weapons they need. Yes, in the future they may develop their own, but just because they have not developed any as of now, nor have they tested any as of now, does not mean they have none.

Lying about weapons of mass destruction worked as an excuse to invade Iraq. The American people took the bait. George bush thinks the American people are dumb enough to bite again. If he says that Iran's nuclear program is to develop weapons, the people will believe him. At least more so then not.

I'm sure if Iran were to test one of its purchased nukes and inform the world that it has thousands more just like it, George Bush would run scared and back off of Iran. Notice, very little is ever said of north Korea which does in fact have nuclear weapons.

The Iranians are not fools . They are setting the perfect trap for good old George. If they switch to the euro and George does nothing, then the world will witness the end of the American era. If George goes to war with Iran over the bourse, the Iranians will sink George's ships in the Gulf, and decimate his troops. Either way George looses. Damned if he does and dammed if he doesn't.

Hi all,

Just because you "believe" Iran has nukes doesn't make it true.

If you have any evidence, please post it.

They are inspected up the wazoo by the IAEA. They have also repeatedly stated that they only want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as it seems that part of their energy establishment realises peak is near and they know their oilfields are in decline, they want to be able to power their society on a diminishing energy base.

It isn't likely that someone could sell them nukes without it being known about - especially Pakistan, parts of whose secret service have very close contacts with the CIA.

I suggest you keep up with Gordon Prather's posts on

Antiwar.com

Where I do agree with Euric is the sabres are rattling against Iran, and although I think no sensible government would start another middle east war, I don't classify Bushco as anything other than crazy and dangerous.

Last weekend I found this short but decent review of the book, just an fyi...



http://www.ens-books.com/reviews/petrodollarreview.html