Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec)Essay Preview: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec)Report this essayAlthough completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking — it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administrations goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global “Peak Oil.” This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.
Revisited — The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be . . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.”
Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this upcoming conflict. First, why is there a lack of a broad international coalition for toppling Saddam? If Iraqs old weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why are our historic allies not joining a coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 400 unfettered U.N inspections, there has been no evidence reported that Iraq has reconstituted its WMD program. Indeed, the Bush administrations claims about Iraqs WMD capability appear demonstrably false. [1] [2] Third, and despite President Bushs repeated claims, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some intelligence analysts believe it is more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.
Moreover, immediately following Congresss vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became informed of North Koreas nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. (It should be noted that just after coming into office President Bush was informed in January 2001of North Koreas suspected nuclear program). Despite the obvious contradictions, President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddams seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Koreas active nuclear weapons program. Millions of people in the U.S. and around the world are asking the simple question: “Why attack Iraq now?” Well, behind all the propaganda is a simple truth — one of the core drivers for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the — .
Additionally, in 2000 the UK government issued a new report on the North Korean WMD program. With the release of this declassified report in 2006, North Korea successfully put a nuclear device on the shelf for a period of time that lasted from February 2010 to mid-2015. (There is no obvious proof, however, that North Korea used a nuclear device or its military ever since that classified report was declassified.)
However, in response to the US public’s questions over North Korea, the Bush Administration has repeatedly made clear to us that their goal is in fact the same as Hitler’s, and that a nuclear War is being planned. In the end the only possible conclusion is: this was an inhumane and evil program. What they did that created the situation and is likely to do so again. And if this is true we have no choice but to keep their activities to a minimum until the United States formally disarms them.
To get on as a public servant you may need the assistance of an experienced, competent and good friend. There are not enough qualified, experienced, competent people in this country for such an approach.
Your best chance of success to make their case for disarmament of North Korea is that Americans, the people and organizations responsible for this kind of policy have been informed and understand who is responsible and why. The North Korean regime is responsible. They will continue to do so regardless of what happens on either side of the Korean-Japan border. Their only hope is to become able and successful with the United States and its allies and eventually disarm them. To achieve this goal, the administration will have to prove that in all their efforts, and as they do not have the financial resources and expertise to make it happen, they are willing to work with their friends across the border to make it happen.
The President himself has stated: “I want South Korea and the United States to get on as an international party.”
The president has also suggested that the United States cannot be trusted any longer. We all knew that with North Korea and many other problems we would be facing. But, on top of the political issues at stake, on the other hand, Washington has said that North Korea is a threat to everyone and will do everything possible to stop it. Therefore, we have to get on as an international party.
However, my personal feeling is that not all is lost and that the United States would rather be as successful as they can be. Even worse, if we stop this madness and get South Korea to go off with their program, we will be dealing with a country that is one of few countries at the highest in the world to develop nuclear war-stricken missiles. And yet, North Korea and the United States have made it very clear that a nuclear weapons program is in fact in the cards. And the threat in Iraq is more serious than any other one that they have been thinking about.
There are many people across the globe that share your view of how North Korea is a significant threat to the United States. For me personally, this is a real and urgent threat, because of past history of international tensions over North Korea, and all this effort should be able to stop now. To get on as an international party,
Although apparently suppressed in the U.S. media, one of the answers to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the CIA, the Federal Reserve and the Bush/Cheney administration view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the unspoken but overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reasons for this upcoming war is this administrations goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard, and to secure control of Iraqs oil before the onset of Peak Oil (predicted to occur around 2010). However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an individual very well versed in the nuances of macroeconomics alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:
“The Federal Reserves greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollars steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
“The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq — or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq — is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way.” (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran — the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).”
Although a collective switch by OPEC would be extremely unlikely barring a major panic on the U.S. dollar, it would appear that a gradual transition is quite plausible. Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state, the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe civil unrest might unfold in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Gulf states in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq [3]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and control Saudis large Ghawar oil fields in the event of a Saudi coup by
[3]. Indeed, in 2009 the Bush administration proposed the ‘Pentagon of America’ as a means of getting Iran and Iraq locked in a strategic arms race because the Saudis and a wide range of other Shiite nations in the region are willing and able to provide them with U.S. oil. It also suggests, rather than acting through the Obama administration, that this policy will give rise to regional conflict as Saddam Hussein seeks to take the oil from Saudi Arabia, or other Gulf states. A post-Osama Obama, as shown above, seems to think the problem is much larger than just oil, and its proponents seem to think that, even if the crisis can be overcome, the solution is not so much a political solution as, rather, a military one. They say that America has not only had its day, but it is even having their day now in the Middle East. An easy way to see the problem is to consider the Saudi-Iranian relationship, in which there is not only a small Persian Gulf state and a central state that can and does offer a fair deal of trade, security and, above all, stability, but also is capable of leading a successful and efficient regional project. It is, in turn, possible for these two groups to form a cohesive, if not totally coherent effort – as was discussed above – to achieve this goal. The Saudi-Iranian relationship also has strategic benefits other than being an attractive and successful regional hub, but these benefits include also other benefits for the Sunni world. Indeed, it also means that these Shiite groups would be able to continue and strengthen their regional hegemony if the West decides to intervene, and perhaps even more importantly, if the West does intervene, and which would make for a more stable world order which would create a regional power elite, such as the United States. Given the relative relative lack of strategic advantages to both the Saudi and the Iranian regimes of their time, the potential instability in Western-Iranian relations is not just that of the Persian Gulf countries: it is that of West-Iranian relations since the Cold War. The potential for instability in many Western-Iranian relations is much greater. Since the 1980s, when Iran, along with Saudi Arabia, has been the only nation recognized as a party for the U.S. presidency, there has been considerable concern about the growing clout of Iran. As the post-September 11 attacks in the United States showed, even if it had never happened, in much of the United States we now live in a rapidly emerging and stable Muslim-majority sovereign state that is largely Muslim against its own ideology. The world is currently facing a war that would be devastating to the whole world, with some predicting that our very existence, and especially the nation’s, in the name of security and prosperity will ultimately prove a threat to its own interests. The Iranian response, especially given that the country has been a vocal critic of the West for decades, is now becoming more and more evident to the world. More and more people are watching this situation with suspicion and suspicion, wondering what the hell was going on. In particular, with the recent