IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the federal Constitution mandates that only gold and silver coin be used as money within the States of the Union. Nevertheless, the federal gov-co removed gold from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933, removed silver from domestic circulation in A.D. 1968, and removed gold backing for dollars in foreign circulation in A.D. 1971. Since A.D. 1971, the US dollar has been intrinsically worthless and a pure fiat currency.
Shortly thereafter, the Nixon administration negotiated agreements with Saudi Arabia and OPEC wherein oil-producing nations of the world would guarantee to sell their crude oil only for dollars. Result? Any nation that wanted to buy crude oil had to first have dollars. This agreement created an international demand for (worthless) dollars. This demand created the illusion of value in the dollar. The fiat dollar became a petro-dollar implicitly backed by crude oil rather than gold or silver.
Based on the international demand for petro-dollars, the federal gov-co was able to grow to enormous size, run huge trade deficits, run up a huge national debt, and export our inflation. The US dollar became the World Reserve Currency and cornerstone of the New World Order.
This arrangement continued until A.D. 2000 when Saddam Hussein started selling Iraqi crude for euros rather than dollars. By doing so, Saddam threatened US dollar’s monopoly as the world’s only petro-currency, its status as World Reserve Currency and its illusion of value.
On February 3rd, A.D. 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence to the UN that Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and argued that the world could not be safe until those WMDs were found and destroyed. The UN agreed with Mr. Powel’s allegations. In March, the US invaded Iraq and ultimately caused the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqis under the pretext of seeking WMDs that did not exist.
The WMD’s were merely a pretext for invasion. The real reason was to stop Iraq from selling its oil for euros and thereby protect the illusory value of the fiat dollar.
• Fast forward 9 years to today. Our military has left Iraq, leaving that nation in shambles. Given the current chaos, it should be easier for major oil drilling and producing companies to bribe, intimidate and control a divided Iraq than it would be to control that same area if Iraq were a cohesive nation. As the US leaves and Iraq descends into chaos, we’re left to wonder if the ruination of Iraq was an unintended consequence—or if national destruction was always intended?
Operating on the principle that “an army is a terrible thing to waste,” we are now preparing to invade Iran.
As in 2003, our current rationale for such invasion is Iran’s growing capacity to make nuclear bombs (WMDs). Just as the world could not be safe so long as Iraq had WMDs, the world again cannot be safe so long as Iran had capacity to build WMDs. To save the world, we must invade Iran.
WMDs for Iraq and WMDs for Iran. Interesting coincidence, no?
• Here’s a second interesting coincidence: Just as the Iraqis didn’t actually have any WMD’s in 2003, Congressman Ron Paul has warned for several months that there’s absolutely no evidence that Iran has the current capacity or intent to produce nuclear WMDs. If Congressman Paul is correct, we again (as in 2003) have no legitimate, publicly-admitted reason to invade Iran.
Some people dismissed Congressman Paul’s warnings as the work of a conspiracy nut.
But last Sunday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was interviewed on Face The Nation and said,
“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them. To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us.”
Washington war hawks surely didn’t want the public to hear the secret that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. We can wonder if Mr. Panetta let exposed that secret by accident or by intent. If he spoke accidentally, his wrists were probably slapped. But if he spoke intentionally, it’s possible that Panetta decided to single-handedly slow or even stop plans to invade Iran. That means Panetta is not a team player and may soon by removed from his position as Secretary of Defense. Regardless of his motivations, Panetta essentially admitted that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is merely pursuing “a nuclear capability”. That’s consistent with what Iran has said for years: it’s developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.
If anyone outside of Iran knows whether Iran is or is not making nuclear weapons, that person should be the US Secretary of Defense. Panetta may have spoken “accidentally”. He may have spoken intentionally. But he almost certainly spoke the truth.
Thus, as in 2003, the nation we’re preparing to invade has no WMDs or intent to make WMDs—and we have no legitimate rationale to invade.
• Here’s a third interesting coincidence: As you’ll recall, the invasion of Iraq appears to have been motivated by Iraq’s decision to sell its oil for euros and thus threaten the perceived value of the US dollar. According to Pakalert Press, in response to planned US sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank, Iran announced,
“. . . “that it will no longer accept the US Dollar as payment for its oil shipments to India, Japan and China, and further announced that bilateral trade between itself and Russia will, also, break from the US Dollar for settlement in favor of the Iranian Rial and Russian Rubles.”
In A.D. 2008, Iran announced that it would no longer accept US Dollars. However, Iran exempted India (world’s 4th largest national economy), Japan (3rd largest) and China (2nd largest) from that prohibition due to their large holdings of American currency. Thus, until recently, “evil” Iran has been supporting the US dollar. But if Iran now stops selling its crude oil to the world’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest economies for dollars, the international demand for dollars will fall; the dollar will lose more standing as the World Reserve Currency; and it’ll lose value as measured on the US Dollar Index. (The price of gold should rise dramatically.)
Thus, just as Iraq threatened the dollar’s value by selling its oil for euros in 2000, Iran is also threatening the dollar’s remaining value by selling much of its oil for currencies other than dollars in A.D. 2012.
Let’s compare these three coincidences between Iraq (2003) and Iran (2012):
2003 Iraq 2012 Iran
Rationale for invasion? WMDs WMDs
Rationale true or false? False False
US dollar Threatened? Yes Yes
Invasion? Yes ???
Gee, wouldn’t it be odd if turned out that our gov-co invades Iran—just as it invaded Iraq—for no reason that can be admitted to the public? Then we’d have four “interesting coincidences”.
REASONS?! WE DON’ NEE’ NO STINKIN’ REASONS!!
Despite credible reports that Iran is not seeking to manufacture nuclear weapons, preparation for an invasion of Iran continues.
• Al Arabia News reports,
“On December 20, Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the U.S. forces based in Germany, said that there will be a deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.”
These American soldiers could intended to be a kind of “trip-wire” or “sacrifice” if Iran attacks Israel. A headline reading “500 American Troops Killed by Iran Attack on Israel” would go a long ways towards inciting the American people to support an invasion of Iran.
• DEBKAfile reports, “US, Russian, French and British air and naval forces streamed to the Syrian and Iranian coasts over the weekend on guard for fresh developments at the two Middle East flashpoints.”
In addition to the military forces of Syria, Iran and Israel, military forces from 1) the US; 2) Russia; 3) France; and 4) Britain are beginning to concentrate in a relatively small area. The Russian forces include an aircraft carrier, destroyer and frigate. France sent the air defense destroyer and the Charles de Gaule aircraft carrier. Britain sent a destroyer armed with new technology for shooting down missiles. The US, of course, has the Fifth Fleet near the Persian Gulf.
Operating in such close proximity, there’s always the chance that a ship or aircraft of one nation might be accidentally destroyed by another. What about false flag operations? Could another nation or terrorist group manage to sink the vessel of one nation in such a way as to cause another nation to be falsely blamed?
The concentration of several military forces in one place is scary. The Washington Post reports that the “Doomsday Clock” (which measures our proximity to nuclear annihilation) moved one minute closer to “midnight”.
• Russia Today (RT) reports that, “The United States is sponsoring the construction of medical facilities in Georgia on the threshold of a military conflict in Iran . . . $5 billion was allocated for the construction of several 20-bed military hospitals.” The construction of new hospitals implies that government doesn’t plan to merely “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran,” but plans to actually invade with soldiers on the ground. Those soldiers will suffer casualties. The new hospitals are apparently being constructed in anticipation of with those casualties.
BLOCKING THE STRAIT
Iran responded to threats of invasion with its own threats to block the Strait of Hormuz. If that Strait was blocked, the flow of oil from Iran would be dramatically reduced. Loss of that much crude could precipitate a global depression. But if blocking the Strait of Hormuz could hurt the global economy, it could kill Iran.
By cutting its own ability to export its oil, Iran would become insolvent, impoverished and politically unstable. If the flow were cut off for several months or even a year, oil consuming nations would seek suppliers in other countries. Saudi Arabia and some African oil-producing nations might gear up to produce more oil and more profits. Once Iran’s current customers (India, Japan, China) began to buy crude from other sources, they might not return all of their business to Iran after the Strait of Hormuz is cleared and Iranian oil production is resumed.
Iran could do more long-term harm to itself by blocking the Strait of Hormuz than might be inflicted by an actual invasion. I regard Iran’s threat to close the Strait as bluff and bluster.
But it’s also dangerous bluff and bluster. Why? Because once Iran threatened to close the Strait, Iran opened the door to being blamed if any other nation actually sinks one or two ships in the Strait in a “false flag” operation. No matter who closes the Strait, you can bet that Iran will be blamed and harmed by the closure. Iran’s enemies could find the temptation to close the Strait and blame Iran to be irresistible.
If you like conjecture, you might note that the Muslim faith is not universal. There are two basic Muslim sects—Sunni and Shia–competing for power as the “one true faith”. 85% of all Muslims are Sunni’s; about 15% are Shia. There’s a natural antagonism between these sects.
Saudi Arabia is primarily Sunni and Iran is the foremost Shia nation. The Saudi’s would probably profit handsomely from the destruction of Iran’s oil producing and exporting capacity. More, the Saudi-Sunni’s would probably gloat secretly if something bad happened to the opposing Shia sect.
While the major motive for invading Iraq must have something to do with profits and money, it’s conceivable that some members of the Sunni majority would secretly join Israel to support a “holy war” against the Shia minority—including Iran.
While I regard protecting the dollar as a primary motive for invading Iran, there could a number of special interests—each with its own primary motive—to invade Iran. Whatever reason(s) exist to invade Iran, it’s almost certainly not about the nukes. If Ron Paul and Leon Panetta are correct, there are currently no Iranian nuclear WMDs and no plan to make some in the future.
If there are no Iranian WMDs, then the world is not threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons and our threats to invade Iran cannot be justified as a matter of national (or global) self-defense.
Given that an invasion of Iran is likely to damage the global economy, the people of the world will not generally benefit from such invasion. It follows that, if the general interests of the people aren’t served by another war (when was that ever true?), then the real reason for invading Iran is to gain some advantage or profit for special interests.
Who might stand to gain from an invasion of Iran?
The US dollar’s slide towards oblivion would be slowed if Iran’s plans to completely abandon the dollar were defeated.
Big oil companies could gain control of Iranian oil and earn more profits.
Competing oil producing nations would profit from the elimination of a major competitor.
The New World Order is built on the foundation of a single, global currency. The US dollar filled that role for 40 years and no other currency (except gold) is likely to fill it again. So long as the US dollar lives, so does the New World Order.
Israel has been attacked with conventional weapons provided by Iran. Iranian ruin should mean less attacks on Israel.
Saudi Arabia would gain financially–and perhaps spiritually (as would the other Sunnis)—from an invasion of Iran.
If there’s no nuclear weapons program in Iran, there’s no legitimate reason to invade. Therefore, the continuing threats to invade must be orchestrated by one or more special interests. Just as the US needed to garner world support (or at least tolerance) before it invaded Iraq in 2003, today, no single special interest has enough power to unilaterally invade Iran. But if a constellation of special interests—including 1) the dollar, 2) big oil, 3) competing oil-producing nations, 4) Israel; 5) the Sunni’s; and 5) the New World Order—could be united in the need or desire to invade or destroy Iran, an invasion could occur. (If politics makes for strange bedfellows, war makes for the freakiest orgy you’ve ever seen.)
The mystery of whether Iran will or will not be invaded reminds me of an old Agatha Christie “whodunit” where each of a dozen people on a train has a valid motive for killing the victim. When only one person has motive to murder, finding and prosecuting the killer is fairly simple. Once the one motive is known, so is the identity of the one killer.
However, in the case of Iran, we’re contemplating the murder of a nation rather than a man. If there’s only one motive, the perpetrator is easily identified, blamed and condemned. But if there were a half-dozen “special interests,” each with its own motive for “killing” Iran, it would be almost impossible to identify and prosecute “the” killer. Given the presence of multiple motives for invading Iran, and given the opportunity for each special interest to blame the others, it becomes almost certain that no special interest will be held accountable, and that such “murder” (invasion) will therefore take place.
After Leon Panetta’s admission that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, I’m not convinced that Iran will be invaded. Without a plausible rationale, the special interests might not be able to invade. (But if somebody could sink a ship or two in the Strait of Hormuz and pin the rap on Iran, there’d be “reason” to invade.)
Before Secretary of Defense Panetta’s admission that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, I’d have placed the odds in favor of invading Iran at 4:1. Today, after Panetta’s admission, I’d place the odds at 3:2 in favor of invasion. In the same sense as “where there’s a will, there’s a way,” I’d say, “Where there’s a profit to be made, there’s a war.”