The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Iran

by **greencrow0** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:18 am

Here is an excellent analysis of the recent 'uptick' in US threats to attack Iran. Well worth the read: <a href="http://billmon.org/">billmon.org/</a> The Flight Forward "...What we are witnessing (through rips in the curtain of official secrecy) may be an example of what the Germans call the flucht nach vorne – the "flight forward." This refers to ta situation in which an individual or institution seeks a way out of a crisis by becoming ever more daring and aggressive (or, as the White House propaganda department might put it: "bold") A familar analogy is the gambler in Vegas, who tries to get out of a hole by doubling down on each successive bet. Classic historical examples of the flucht nach vornes include Napoleon's attempt to break the long stalemate with Britain by invading Russia,the decision of the Deep South slaveholding states to secede from the Union after Lincoln's election, and Milosevic's bid to create a "greater Serbia" after Yugoslavia fell apart. As these examples suggest, flights forward usually don't end well – just as relatively few gamblers emerge from a doubling-down spree with their shirts still on their backs. But of course, most gamblers don't have the ability to call in an air strike on the casino. For Bush, or the neocons, or both, regime change in Iran not only may appear doable, it may also look like the only way out of the spectacular mess they have created in Iraq. The logic is understandable, if malevolent. Instead of creating a secular, pro-American client state in the heart of the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq has destroyed the front-line Arab regime opposing Tehran, installed a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and vastly increased Iranian influence, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Shi'a world. It's also moved the Revolutionary Guard one step closer to the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields – the prize upon which the energy security of the West depends. By the traditional standards of U.S. foreign policy, this is a fiasco of almost unbelievable proportions. More to the point, the neocons may believe that unless they can do something dramatic to recoup those losses, they won't be able to safely withdraw large numbers of troops from Iraq, since they are A.) the only remaining source of U.S. influence in the country and B.) the only shield against Iranian infiltration of both Iraq and the Shi'a majority regions of Saudia Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Yet the military need for such a draw down becomes more critical with each passing day, as the all-volunteer Army is stretched towards its breaking point. In other words, the administration, and the Pentagon, have gotten themselves into one hell of a jam – militarily, strategically and politically. As desperate and reckless as attempted regime change in Iran might seem to us, to the Cheneyites it may look like the only move left on the board..."

by **professorpan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:46 pm

Interesting commentary, and thanks for the link. I've been fairly convinced that the neocon plan was never designed to bring stability in the Middle East. They want chaos. They want to decrease stabliity and increase Muslim antagonism toward the West (and the U.S. in particular). Then, when the crisis has reached a fever pitch, an apocalyptic, fundamentalist world war will allow them to proceed with their imperial ambitions to snatch up the precious few drops of Earthblood. It's the endgame. All the pieces are in place. Iran is the tinderbox, and Bush's greedy little fingers are ready to strike the match.

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:25 pm

professorpan -- Uhm, yeah, well-said. I kinda-sorta agree -- that is, I can't find anything else more compelling. I suspect the status-quo PTB --consisting of alliances of neocon and 'conservative' political factions, military-industrial/resource/global banking/organized crime and 'other' Multinational combines -- are at-least partly fighting to keep whatever 'control' they have managed to acquire by stealth and guile, blackmail/bribes/trickery/racketeering enterprises and links with international state officials, NGOs and supra-state special interests (ie., powerful corporations); Indeed, just trying to get a handle on who these 'groups' are is problematic exercise since they're often deeply hidden (ie, Opus Dei, P-2, Al-CIA-Duh, rightwing thinktanks and media franchises, etc.). But looking at what has 'happened' in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East through the US's aggressive and seemingly foolish, incompetant actions, a tremendous stash of loot has been stolen pilfered, lost, appropriated (probably the US 'taxpayer' bill will be around $2 trillion before all is said and done --unless there's a full-on global war, then all bets are off), one can't hardly convincingly argue security or global 'peace' have been advanced -- quite the exact opposite (as rising oil-prices affirm). Regional instability has NEVER been greater than in the last what, 40 years? This is nothing else than a cold-hearted, reckless tossing of the dice while double-downing each loss, not without indications of paranoid desperation by the main antagonists who nevertheless hide it with bullyboy bravado and irresponsible threats that HAS to fill the rest of the world with dread and keen anxiety, asking, 'What IS IT with these suicidal wannabe Imperialist Conquistador Americans?' I have -zero- confidence that sanity and reason will prevail to avert the ongoing-tragedy getting even worse before it gets better. It's like the US 'leadership' is setting the stage for targetted adversaries to take the threat seriously so they can retaliate with extreme prejudice. These guys are major SICKO, dangerous nuclear-armed blowhard Messianic zealot worldclass criminals fleeing justice and willing to start WW 4 to avoid/defer judgement. I'm TRYING to stay optimistic and hopeful, but it's an uphill climb. Mebbe we'll be 'saved' from our own folly by supervolcanic eruptions or an asteroid impact or a genuine Alien pre-emptive 'rescue' liberation? Pass the popcorn ... Starman

by **greencrow0** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:54 pm

Thanks for your comments professorpan and starman I've been noting this prediliction on the part of the neocons [posting under the nick greencrow0 in the NYT] for gambling...as pointed out by billmon. The first such neoCon gamble was neoCon PM Brian Mulroney in Canada in the early 1990's when he told a reporter that he was going to 'roll the dice' on the constitution...at the time he was trying to force Canadians to accept a constitutional amendment that over 70% did NOT want. Jeff will no doubt remember this episode. After that, I always associated the enjoyment of 'risk taking' with the NeoCons...they seem to be addicted to it and to proving their 'maniliness' by taking great risks...but it is always, always, always with the assets and resources of others...their own assets and resources 'and hides' [in the case of legal fall out] are always carefully salted away and protected by bought judges, Supreme Courts, Swiss bank accounts, etc.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o"> Regards, GC

by **greencrow0** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:06 pm

so, taking Billmon's theory about risk taking a step further... Napoleon was one of the first neoCons. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Hmmm ... Interesting, Billmon's reasoned analysis of the current and impending crisis in the Middle East vs their 'flucht nacht vorne' --flight forward--, and drawing on thoughts of other reporters/bloggers, suggest the neocon-artist's nuclear sabre-rattling may be a clever strategem to make a conventional attack appear 'reasonable' by comparison. Ex-Airforce Col. Gardiner quoted below in a DemNow interview backs this up by pointing out that wargame exercises have shown there would be NO practical benefit to the US launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran -- it will only seriously destabilize the Middle East and may precipatate a global catastrophe. But then trying to analyze what these Messianic bloodsoaked criminals may do based on 'reason' may be a lost-cause -- it doesn't seem that 'ordinary' logic has much to do with how these thugs think or why they do what they do. Gardiner also points out that there's growing evidence the US has already initiated military ops and is probably coordinating terrorism in Iran (ie, the MEK, as other sources have recently discussed and as read on this forum), without proper cause, exceeding the sec.of Defense's authority, lacking specific authorization by Congress or even informing them within 60 days (on the premise of War Powers act) -- all of which are DIRECTLY against long-established law. So there's a real issue of the Constitutional framework under which the present military ops are being conducted. Much of this seems to be a repeat of covert ops being waged against Iraq without any authorization, even before the UN had voted -- with Rumsfeld telling his Generals to do whatever they felt they had to, just keep it below the CNN radar-threshold. I guess that shows just what Rummy is all about -- for anyone not paying attention. And HE'S just a symptom of the Military Complex directing Foreign Policy without any oversight. In addition, Gardiner relates, Bush is making nuclear deals with India, thereby disrupting a delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and provoking nuclear proliferation -- which is absurdly hypocritical given that the US's objection to Iranian nuclear development efforts is based on the notion of maintaining the status-quo. Apparently, this has Europe quite perplexed -- or alarmed maybe? The context is that Iran has shown good-faith voluntary compliance to the Non-proliferation treaty, allowing unprecedented access and inspection beyond that of any other nation but has nevertheless been demonized and vilified by the US -- thus effectively destroying whatever incentive any nation would have to cooperate in the program -- seeing it's to their benefit to keep their nuclear ambitions secret -- AND that in a world lacking effective International Institutions WMD may be the ONLY way to guarantee their security. Gardiner also believes Israel has effectively convinced the US it would be better to launch a pre-emptive military attack on Iran by itself, rather than 'allow' Israel to do so. Note the cite below that Russian sources believe an Iran attack will not occur until the scene has been set for popular revolt -- probably early next year. That still doesn't reassure me all that much. Events continue to develop ... Starman ****** <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/17/143241">www.democracynow.org/arti.../17/143241</a> --excerpt-- ... AMY GOODMAN: Moving from Donald Rumsfeld, I wanted to talk about another issue that’s making news from the Pentagon, and that’s Iran. Both the New Yorker magazine and the Washington Post have reported the U.S. has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as wild speculation. But evidence continues to emerge that the U.S. is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for Washington Post, defense analyst William Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon war game that included an invasion of Iran. Colonel Sam Gardiner, you're a retired Air Force colonel. You’ve taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, as well as the Air War College, the Naval War College. One of your areas of expertise is helping to stage these war games. In 2004 you conducted a war game organized by the Atlantic Monthly to gauge how an American president might respond militarily or otherwise to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. What was your conclusion? COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, let me say something first about a war game. It's a little bit like Dickens in A Christmas Carol, and that is, you go out in Christmas future and you muck around, then you come back and say, “What did I learn from being there?” And I would summarize that by saying by being in the future, by going through how the United States might attack Iranian nuclear facilities, I have to tell you that there is no solution in that path. In fact, it is a path towards probably making things in the Middle East much worse. It's not a solution to either stopping the Iranians or spreading democracy in the Middle East or getting us out of Iraq. It's a path that leads to disaster in many dimensions. AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what a war game is? COL. SAM GARDINER: Sure, well, the idea is simply that rather than staying in the present and looking to the future, can we project ourselves into the future? Let me just use an example. Let's say that we wanted to explore what would happen if we were to conduct a strike against Iran. The way you would address that is you would begin in this group of people who know the situation, you'd say, ‘Okay, the attack against Iran occurred two days ago. We now know that the Iranians are beginning to look for options by having Hezbollah attack Israel. What do we do? What’s our response to that?’ And then you sort of look at the response in that future hypothetical, and you do that through a number of cases. And you can even turn it around and do it from the Iranian perspective, which is, if you were the Iranian supreme leaders and this is what the United States did -- and we can sort of know that, because we know from the Washington Post article and from the New Yorker article what’s being planned -- so you can look at it from the Iranian perspective and say, ‘How would we respond if the United States were to do this kind of thing?’ AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. You were quoted on CNN on Friday night, saying the question isn't if we would attack Iran, that military operations are already happening. What do you mean? COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already -- AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what? COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath. AMY GOODMAN: Yeah. COL. SAM GARDINER: I think the same thing has happened, and the evidence -- let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side. I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence. Let me give you a couple more. Seymour Hersh, in his New Yorker article, said that there are Americans in three locations operating inside Iran. Another point. We know that there is a group in Iraq, a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, that crosses the border from Iraq into Iran, and they have taken credit for killing numbers of revolutionary guard military people. And the interesting part about that is, you know, we tell the Syrians, ‘Don't let that happen. Don't let people come across the border and stir things up in Iraq,’ but we don't seem to be putting any brakes on on this unit. So, you know, the evidence is pretty strong that the pattern is being followed. Now, the question that really follows from that is “Who authorized that?” See, there is no congressional authorization to conduct combat operations against Iran. There are a couple of possibilities. One of them is that it's being justified under the terrorism authorization that occurred in 2001. The problem with that is that you would have to prove a connection to 9/11. I don't think you can do that with Iran. The second possibility is that it's being done under the War Powers Act. I don't want to get too technical, but the War Powers Act would require the President to notify the Congress 60 days after the use of military force or invasion or putting military forces in a new country under that legislation, and the President hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran. So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran. AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Sam Gardiner, we have to break for 60 seconds, but I want to ask you two more questions when we come back about the effect of President Bush going to India to sell nuclear technology, what that had on Iran, and also where Israel fits into this picture. AMY GOODMAN: ... What are people inside the military, Colonel Gardiner, saying about the U.S. being inside Iran right now? COL. SAM GARDINER: Actually, I have to say, I haven't heard anyone comment. I mean, I think that the picture is just becoming clear. I actually haven't gotten any feedback. Can't say. AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you then about this issue of India. President Bush, very high profile, goes to India, announces selling nuclear technology to India, upsetting the balance there between India and Pakistan, but what effect did that have on the people of Iran? COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, it has an effect on them, maybe even more importantly it has an effect on the Europeans. I was at a conference with European diplomats and Iranian diplomats a few weeks ago, and the Europeans find themselves in quite a quandary over this Indian nuclear deal. What they say is, and they even -- well, I saw them -- an Iranian diplomat asked a European diplomat this very question: You’re putting all this pressure on us for not following the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, what about what the U.S. is doing with India? And the Europeans sort of mumble and say, ‘Well, I can’t explain that.’ Etc., etc. So it's putting the Europeans in a very difficult position, supporting putting pressure on Iran to reach a diplomatic solution. It's a real inconsistency in policy. AMY GOODMAN: And, Colonel Sam Gardiner, finally, Israel. Where does Israel fit into this picture? COL. SAM GARDINER: A year and a half ago I would have said high on the list of possible futures is an Israeli attack by themselves on the Iranian nuclear facility. That has changed. I think Israel has convinced the United States that it is better for the United States to do it by itself, rather than to have Israel do it, in terms of the potential reactions in the Middle East. So I think Israel's policy statements are, you know, it's a world problem that translates to being it is an American problem that has to be dealt with. ***** Some additional comments and sources re: possible run-up to US attack on Iran, implications: Bombs That Would Backfire By RICHARD CLARKE and STEVEN SIMON The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well. <a href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12761.htm">informationclearinghouse....e12761.htm</a> The US, Iran and the End of the International Order By Jussi Sinnemaa As the IAEA has repeatedly acknowledged, Iran is not in violation of any of her legal obligations as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, Iran has allowed far more intrusive international inspections of her nuclear facilities than required by the NPT. Iran remains the only country to have done so. <a href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12762.htm">informationclearinghouse....e12762.htm</a> Rafsanjani says Gulf countries will not assist U.S. if it attacks Iran : "Reports about plans for an American attack on Iran are incorrect. We are certain that Americans will not attack Iran because the consequences would be too dangerous," former president Hashemi Rafsanjani said in an appearance in the Kuwait parliament. <a href="http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/42360.html">www.freenewmexican.com/news/42360.html</a> U.S. could attack Iran next year - Russian expert : "If [the U.S.] ventures a military operation, it will conduct it next year after thorough political, military and propaganda preparations," Alexei Arbatov, head of the International Security Center in Moscow, told RIA Novosti. <a href="http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060417/46525489.html">en.rian.ru/russia/20060417/46525489.html</a> In case you missed it: Ahmadinejad Did Not Say - "Wipe Israel Off The Map": Lets fill in the Blanks in the Speech of Irans President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad <a href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm">informationclearinghouse....e12763.htm</a> No U.S. nuclear facilities in Romania : The U.S. cannot launch attacks from their military facilities in Romania without our approval, President Traian Basescu pointed out on Sunday during a television talk show. <a href="http://www.daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=25226">www.daily-news.ro/article...icle=25226</a> Russia, US slipping into familiar 'chill'?: In a recent poll, 57 percent of Russians regard the US as a 'threat to global security.' <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0417/p06s02-woeu.html">www.csmonitor.com/2006/04...-woeu.html</a>

by **greencrow0** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:53 pm

Thanks for this link, starmanskye. It's chilling in the utmost that we are being led to the abyss and no one save charlie sheen is speaking up about it. I am thinking the Nepalese solution [the people there are going to withhold taxes to try to bring down the government] is starting to look more and more like a plan. Regards, GC

by **greencrow0** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 am

Whiskey Bar has a new instalment to this analysis: <a href="http://billmon.org/">billmon.org/</a>

by **4911** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:41 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C%2C329458147-103685%2C00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/print/...%2C00.html</a>

by **professorpan** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:53 pm

May I go a little off-topic and ask about the Iranian oil bourse? That was a hot topic, and fed into a lot of the conversations about a potential invasion. Does anyone have updates on that? Did the bourse go into effect? Have the predicted economic shocks begun?<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **4911** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:28 pm

professorpan, I heard that the bourse was a rumor started by some woman in switzerland (dont quote me on it) and by the time it was due to start up, the iranian gov made a statement that they had never planned that. Either way it looks like we should all stockpile that suntan lotion, cuz the future is looking bright indeed. About 1000 megatons of brightness. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 4/18/06 12:30 pm

by **greencrow0** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:59 pm

<a href="http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14587.shtml">www.iranian.ws/iran_news/...4587.shtml</a> Here is a good link for information on the Oil Bourse. GC

by **nomo** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:16 pm

Lock him away to stop the next war With his presidency reduced to a mess, George W. Bush may just decide to lash out wildly at Iran, writes Phillip Adams April 18, 2006 <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18843175-12272,00.html">www.theaustralian.news.co...72,00.html</a> WE cannot wait any longer for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Far more efficient to have Bush certified. There is no need for further debate on his mental state. The US President is bonkers. Having turned the White House into a madhouse, having taken more lunatic positions on more issues than any head of state since George III (are they, perchance, related?). GWB needs a long rest and a change of medication. And it shouldn't be too hard to guide him into a padded cell. Just tell him it's the presidential bomb shelter. Let's examine the symptoms of his mental decline. First, Bush convinced Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. This is something the poor fool might have believed, given a tenuous grasp of geography, history and political reality. He then began to hallucinate about weapons of mass destruction, despite the evidence of Hans Blix and a multitude of others that there weren't any. And he finally organised a tatty little alliance to join him in the silliest war since Vietnam, one guaranteed to recruit terrorists in unprecedented numbers. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was launched with presidential lies. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war descended into a moral and military quagmire. And if Iraq seems to be less of a stuff-up, consider this fact: it's taken just three years in Iraq for US deaths to equal the body count after six years in Vietnam. Little wonder six retired senior generals have joined ranks with the American public in condemning the war, or that the guru of neo-conservatism, Francis Fukuyama, has broken ranks with the likes of Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol in denouncing it. Or that many in the Republican hierarchy have joined left-wing critics denouncing the invasion as a mistake and a failure, calling for immediate withdrawal. When Bush was re-elected in 2004, this column suggested the President would go on to blast Iran or have the job done by Israeli surrogates. Both scenarios were dismissed as absurd and alarmist. Now journalist Seymour Hersh's revelations of a US plan to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps with nuclear bunker-blasters, are causing national and international dismay. They've also provoked anger among the Pentagon's highest-ranking officers already enraged by Donald Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Given Rumsfeld's clear contempt for their opinions, they might well feel mutinous should he and the Commander-in-Chief show further signs of strategic insanity. But would that prevent air strikes by the Israelis? Given the sabre-rattling by that ratbag in Tehran, what could hold Israel back? Bush is attempting to hose things down, but the world recalls his endlessly repeated mantra before the invasion of Iraq. Military intervention wasn't inevitable, just an option. Now bleeding in the polls with mid-term elections looming, isn't it possible that Bush might go for broke? Double or nothing? A final, desperate throw of the dice? Condoleezza Rice might join the Pentagon in trying to talk him down. So, one hopes, would Tony Blair and John Howard. But did Bush listen to reasoned argument last time? With a reckless, irrational President, you've the perfect set-up for the tail to wag the dog. As with 9/11, here's an opportunity for reality to follow a Hollywood script. Last week I discussed this scenario with Fukuyama. His initial response was that Bush's political situation is too perilous for such a tactic, that the US public and its media wouldn't tolerate another Iraq. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities could be characterised as surgical. It might not need troops on the ground and would certainly seem more relevant to the war on terror than the neo-con adventure in Iraq. Fukuyama conceded that such a strategy was possible. And that possibility is more than enough. A lame-duck President with the eagle as his symbol once again takes the role of hawk. With his presidency a total mess, what's there to lose? So it's time to certify the President. Yes, you'd have to certify his equally deranged Vice-President as well. And toss in Rumsfeld to keep them company. Along with anyone else in the administration, the Congress, the Senate or the Australian parliament mad enough to think Iraq a sane decision.

by **Byrne** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:32 am

ProfPan, I searched for some updated info on the Iranian oil Bourse. Not much out there, but I did find this, from an article about the USDollar decline/IOBourse:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>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 From <a href="http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/65/4212/2006-03-21.asp?wid=65&nid=4212" target="top">here</a><hr></blockquote> The above sums things up - the US will NOT allow the IOB to happen. Also, <a href="http://americandaily.com/article/12589" target="top">this article</a> discusses the Iranian Oil Bourse (excerpt below) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Future of Oil Trading in Euro - Creation of the Iranian Oil Bourse One of the elements of the plan includes the pricing and trading of oil in Euros. For the plan to work oil producing countries and purchasers will gradually convert the oil trading to alternate currencies. The primary issue is when will the Euro be a significant currency of oil trade—not specifically on the Iran Oil Bourse. With the conflicts existing between the Shia and Sunni countries, the IOB may not have the major impact some anticipate. Iran oil production amounts to 4 percent of world oil. Iran's opening of an Oil Bourse priced in Euros (And possibly ultimately in the Islamic Gold Dinar.) was originally planned to initiate operations at the end of March 2006. According to the Iran Ministry of Petroleum the delayed opening is a result of “technical glitches.” No new date has been set. While Pravda on January 21 indicated that the IOB opened. The opening may be the end of the monopoly of the Dollar on the global oil market and potentially impact the Dollar as the reserve currency for world trade. The longer-term result is likely to upset the international currency market, as producing countries will be able to charge their production in Euros also. In parallel, European countries in particular will be able to buy oil directly in their own currency without going though the Dollar. Concretely speaking, in both cases this means that a lesser number of economic actors will need a lesser number of Dollars. This double development will thus head to the same direction, i.e. a very significant reduction of the importance of the Dollar as the international reserve currency, and therefore a significant and sustainable weakening of the American currency, in particular compared to the Euro. The most conservative evaluations give €1 to $1.30 US Dollar by the end of 2006. But if the crisis reaches the scope anticipated, estimates for the Euro in 2007 are even higher. Iran’s plan is to open a new oil bourse (exchange) on which countries all over the world can buy and sell oil and gas in Euros. It also establishes a new oil “ marker “ based on Iranian crude and denominated in Euros, in open rivalry to the existing West Texas, Norway Brent and UAE Dubai markers, all of which are calculated in U.S. dollars. It should be obvious that if the bourse opens as planned that it would reduce considerably, over time, the need for dollars by all the Eurozone and as well as much of the rest of the world. Russia has already moved in this direction. In order to contemplate the consequences of the opening of the Euro oil market in Iran, it is necessary to look at its origins. However surprising this may be, the man behind the idea is the British financier Chris Cook, former director of the International Petroleum Exchange in London. In 2001 he wrote a letter to the head of the Iranian Central Bank Mohsen Nourbakhsh. The letter said that the structure of the international oil markets is closely linked to trade brokers, and especially to investment banks, which has a disadvantageous effect on states such as Iran, which are both producers and consumers at the same time. Chris Cook advised Iran to make a decision as soon as possible about creating a Middle East exchange for energy resources, which would set a new standard for oil prices in the Persian Gulf. And not a word was said about “opposing the Atlanticists.” Ideas for shaking the dollar through unilateral efforts have always fallen apart – Iran, if anyone, should know about that. We remember how at the end of the 1970s, when the OPEC countries agreed to sell oil for dollars and inflated the selling cost of a barrel, oil prices rocketed up by 400%. France, Germany and Japan suddenly decided to purchase oil in their own currencies and thus lower the pressure from the American currency. According to the Pravda analysis: In reply the U.S. Treasury and the Pentagon did everything they could to ensure that this did not happen: secret diplomatic treaties, threats and military agreements were taken between the USA and the main OPEC oil producer, Saudi Arabia. This is what started a new stage in the unlimited power of American financial system. Profit from the export of oil dollars by OPEC countries ended up in the hands of large banks in New York and London and resurfaced in the form of loans to countries experiencing an oil deficit. For example, to Brazil and Argentina, which would later be caught up in the quagmire of the tragic Latin American debt crisis. On February 14, 2006 Syria switched all of the state's foreign currency transactions to Euros from dollars amid a political confrontation with the United States. The switch would mean Euro pricing for crude oil sales, a major foreign currency earner for Syria. The latest official figures show Syria imported $6.7 billion goods in 2004 and exported $5.4 billion. Oil output is about 400,000 barrels a day. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez is also trying to get away from the fiat Dollar. He had entered into trade agreements with other South American countries, such as Cuba, to barter services and goods for oil without the use of any currency. Bolivia’s new President Evo Morales has promised to nationalize the country’s oil fields, and has also shown tendencies to shy away from the Dollar. On December 30, 2005 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. If all oil producing countries switch to Euro the rest of the world would dump the Dollar causing it to drastically lose its value. To understand the seriousness of this let us look at China alone. China has an excess of $800 billion in its foreign exchange reserves and may increase to $1 trillion soon. China buys most of its oil from Saudi Arabia and trade between the two countries has exceeded $14 billion in late 2005. In 2006 China also entered into government-to-government deals with Saudi Arabia. Iran is also a major supplier. If China alone dumps the Dollar the American economy would suffer greatly. Now imagine what would happen if other countries, such as Japan, India, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and all the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, would also dump the Dollar. The IOB in itself cannot break the dollar. The long-term goal of the OIC is to ultimately convert the trading into the Islamic Gold Dinar. This of course would have greater implications if ultimately accomplished. Other countries including Norway are considering a new oil bourse to trade in Euro. The issue of currency selection for oil trading has been around for some years. However, when this issue is combined with the other events and the global alignment of nations, the issue must be considered as to its long-term implications. With over three-fifths of the world’s population within the SCO countries combined with the 200 million within Mercosur plus all the 57 countries of the OIC lining up to create a new nuclear-armed multi-polar world, we should take notice. Whether the IOB will impact the dollar remains to be determined. The IOB may not open as scheduled and/or the IOB may not attract the trading as the Iranians anticipate. Certainly, the issues surrounding the potential sanctions on Iran may determine the near-term impact. However other factors such as the U.S. balance of trade will compound events on the IOB. <hr></blockquote>

by **StarmanSkye** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:26 am

Another well-argued opinion that Bush oughtta be committed, not impeached -- by cartoonist Ted Rall. Starman ****** Ted Rall via yahoo - April 19, 2006 <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20060419/cm_ucru/dontimpeachbushcommithi...">news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/200...ommithi...</a> DON'T IMPEACH BUSH. COMMIT HIM A Maniacal Messianic Prepares to Fulfill His Destiny By Ted Rall "I have fulfilled my destiny," the president says manically. He has just entered the nuclear launch codes that will trigger World War III. Seconds later, he emerges from a bunker. The Secretary of State squeezes between two soldiers. "Mr. President!" he shouts. "We have a diplomatic solution!" He smiles. "It's too late," he replies. "The missiles are flying. Alleluia. Alleluia." The above scene, from David Cronenberg's 1983 adaptation of the horror novel "The Dead Zone," is a classic if slightly preposterous nightmare of a world destroyed by a demented demagogue. Now, incredibly, a lunatic out of a Stephen King movie has brought the United States to the brink of Armageddon. Until I read Seymour Hersh's expose in The New Yorker and subsequent follow-up coverage by other journalists about the Bush Administration's plans to start a war against Iran, I had dismissed talk of George W. Bush's messianism as so much Beltway chatter. True, he hears voices, even claiming that God and Jesus Christ talk to him. "I believe God wants me to run for president," he told a friend in Texas. Eschewing mainstream religion, he routinely parrots the apocalyptic ravings of fringe Christianist cults: "And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [America shall conquer its enemies]," he said during his fevered campaign for war against Iraq. He mimics Old Testament cadences: "God told me to strike at Al Qaeda and I struck them," Bush told the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, "and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." Nooor-mal. Despite the man's wacky religiosity, I have been giving Bush the benefit of a small amount of remaining doubt after five years of the most disastrous rule this nation has ever suffered. I believed that he was breathtakingly bigoted, stupid and ignorant. But I didn't think he was out of his mind. Until now. "Current and former American military and intelligence officials" tell Hersh "that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium." Of course, uranium enrichment for peaceful atomic energy is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Which is what the Iranians say they're doing. But the Bush Administration, which knows a little about lying, doesn't believe them. Fair enough: One only has to consider the risk of nuclear conflagration between India and Pakistan to see why the fewer countries have nukes, the better. Not every country can be trusted with such terrifying weapons. So how does the trustworthy United States plan to make its stand against nuclear proliferation? By nuking Iran. "One of the military's initial option plans," reports Hersh, "...calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites." An intelligence insider says that "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap. 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan." "We're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years," he went on. Crazy stuff. But whenever someone inside the Administration opposes the nuclear option, "They're shouted down." The pro-nuke faction, led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is responding to internal critics with a "B61 [nuclear bomb] with more blast and less radiation." You may have heard that Bush dismissed Hersh's article as "wild speculation." At first I, like you, responded with a sigh of relief. But I've come to learn that Bush doesn't talk like a human being. His policy pronouncements are carefully lawyered to give him the kind of technical out that Bill Clinton could only have dreamed of. Bushspeak is crafted to ensure that what Mr. Straightshooter says is rarely what he means. Filtering "wild speculation" statement through Bushspeak analysis shows that it's no denial at all. "The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," Bush said. Notice that, despite the disaster in Iraq, he still reserves the right to wage preemptive war. He continued: "I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." It doesn't mean force necessarily. If and when a reporter reminds Bush of this statement after he attacks Iran, he will say that he never took the military option--including nukes--off the table. Moreover, he'll say, that he told the truth at the time. Thus the present tense: means. Bush has not denied Hersh's article. Therefore, we should accept it as accurate. We already know that Bush is capable of lying about his willingness to use diplomacy instead of war. "We're still in the final stages of diplomacy," he told reporters on March 6, 2003. "I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed...Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties." Actually, Bush had decided to invade Iraq months--probably years--before. He had moved hundreds of thousands of American troops into the Persian Gulf. Two weeks later, he ordered an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein and began the saturation bombing of Baghdad. But Bush was still talking as if there were something Saddam could do to avoid war. "Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm," he went on. "We hope he does." Sure. Many people have asked me during the last year whether I thought Bush would attack Iran. I said no, because he's out of troops, out of cash and out of political capital. He couldn't so he wouldn't. Those things are still true. Not to mention that Iran would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. Yet, as Hersh reports, the U.S. may bomb at least 400 cities and towns inside Iran. "Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups." You don't need troops, money or the support of the American people when God talks to you. And when you're insane. ***** [Ted Rall is the editor of "Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists," an anthology of webcartoons which will be published in May.]

The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Iran

The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Iran

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Re: The Flight Forward - NeoCon Plan to Roll the Dice on Ira

Britain took part in mock Iran invasion

oil bourse

Re: oil bourse

Re: oil bourse

Lock him away to stop the next war

Re: Iranian Oil Bourse

Re: Lock him away to stop the next war

Who is online