Jump to content

Something old, something new something borrowed..

Recommended Posts

Below is part of a post I thought some might find interesting. Below is the web reference reference it came from, and seems to suggest, we are all being taken for fools, as in Iraq, and Libya, where we gave them ?????Democracy? And or course Afghanistan!



US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t.


At the heart of the issue is not Iran’s dubious attempt to build nuclear weapons, or even oil, but how that oil is paid for. In 1973, Richard Nixon promised King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all interested parties seeking to forcefully wrest them from the House of Saud. It’s important to remember that in 1973, Saudi Arabia didn’t have a fraction of the military and ground forces it possesses today (almost exclusively US manufactured weapons) and the USSR was very much a threat.


In return Saudi Arabia, and by extension OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. As if that weren’t sweet enough, as part of the deal, they were required to invest their profits in US treasuries, bonds and bills. The real zinger is that all countries purchasing oil from OPEC had to do so in US dollars, or ‘petrodollars’.

This strengthened the US dollar, resulting in a steady US economic growth cycle throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Countries purchasing OPEC oil started buying US treasury bills, bonds and securities to ensure they could continue purchasing OPEC oil. This worked fine for the US until 2001.


No plan, however well formulated, functions smoothly indefinitely.

2001, enter Saddam Hussein. He floated a plan to sell oil for European currencies in lieu of petrodollars. Shortly after Iraq was ‘suddenly’ found to be seeking and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction – allegations spearheaded by the US. The world knows what happened, suffice it to say that Saddam is dead and Iraq is ‘back on track’, selling its oil for petrodollars once again.


Muammar Gaddafi harbored the Lockerbie Bombers and allowed various terrorist organizations establish training camps in Libya. He tried to buy a nuke from China in 1972. In 1977, he approached Pakistan, then India. He sought nerve gas from Thailand. In spite of well over fifty failed assassination attempts on Gaddafi by Israel, the US and the UK, Libya was left to its own devices for the most part. Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Gaddafi made a fatal error when he decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of other currencies. This simply was not tolerated by the US. Having already played the WMD card in Iraq, something new was pulled from the US ‘regime change’ grab bag. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi and now he is dead. Long live the petrodollar.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), suggested last year that the Euro would be a more suitable oil reserve currency than the US Dollar. Within three months of that statement, allegations of rape ruined his career, derailing his bid for the French Presidency in the process. Soon thereafter, all charges were dropped, but of course, le dommage était fait – the damage was done. Christine Lagarde, DSK’s replacement as head of the IMF sees no reason to change the current arrangement, naturellement.


The Iran situation is a little trickier. The US has sought to dismantle Iran’s regime ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, so this round of hostilities, while not new, reflects a new level of intensity. Why, after thirty years of hostility, has the US ratcheted up its rhetoric? As Obama stated in his recent State of the Union address, when it comes to Iran and the insistence they dismantle their nuclear program, “no options are off the table”. By stating ‘no options’ this would include nuclear deployment as a deterrent.

The answer of course is that Iran is now seeking to disengage itself from the petrodollar dynamic. In 2005, Iran sought to create an Iranian Oil Exchange, thus bypassing the US controlled petrodollar. Fear that western powers would freeze accounts in European and London banks put an end to that plan.


But that was not the end of their attempts, and Iran sought other ways to get around the petrodollar noose. There are rumors that India, which imports 12% of their oil from Iran, has agreed to purchase oil for gold. Energy trade with China, importing 15% of its oil and natural gas from Iran may be settled in gold, yuan, and rial. South Korea plans to buy 10% of their oil from Iran in 2012, and unless Seoul sides with American and European sanctions, it is likely to use gold or their sovereign currency to pay for it. Also, Iran is already dumping the dollar in its trade with Russia in favor of rials and rubles.

Iran is breaking the back of the petrodollar. Others have tried, but Iran is succeeding. To understand how disastrous this is for the US, one must have a basic understanding of how critical a role the petrodollar plays in the economic health of the US.


Through King Faisal, Nixon elevated the US to supreme economic ascendency, not unlike Damocles in his desire to rule. Sitting on the (economic) throne of the world is great, but Nixon was either unaware of the sword dangling over the US economic system, or chose to ignore it in favor of reaping the rewards of the moment.


By creating the petrodollar paradigm, the US economy soared, as all countries of the world were required to amass US currency to purchase oil from OPEC nations. Sales of T-bills, securities and US bonds soared. US coffers fattened. With the US dollar as the world’s oil currency reserve, economic fortune favored the US. But with great reward comes great risk. While other countries exchanged their currency for the dollar, (forfeiting value in the process) the US simply printed more money to match their needs and purchase their oil – essentially for free. The best example is that while gasoline in the US cost $3.00 per gallon, in Europe that same gallon costs $6.00 or more.


Herein lies the danger. If Iran is successful in its bid to set up their own bourse, or oil exchange, then what need does the world have for all those US dollars? The answer is none at all. As Iran creating gold and sovereign currency partnerships with India, China, South Korea and Russia, the hegemony of the petrodollar will be destroyed.

The resulting sell-off of US dollars, T-bills, securities, bonds and assets will flood the already swollen world economy with even more useless dollars, ultimately devaluing it into a position where hyper-inflation becomes a risk.


So, while the US government sabre-rattles and prattles on and on about nuclear weapons and the threat Iran poses to the Middle East, the thin veneer of lies spouted by the elite controlled media is being stripped away, revealing the truth of their warmongering rhetoric.

The US, by their foolish insistence on enforcing embargoes and sanctions against Iran, is hastening the end of the petrodollar and ushering in the age of US dollar hyper-inflation. A practical example: One loaf of bread in a healthy economy is $1.00. In an inflationary economy it’s $1.75. In a hyper-inflationary economy, $500.00.


So what did you think? http://rt.com/news/iran-attack-us-allegations-243/ The bullies want the world and all its wealth, therefore controlling every nation, and pulling the plug if they do not pay tribute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, history was stranger than fiction.


Petrodollars are an artificial construct, but then again, is gold really that useful? (Other than something to use as a standard against which to measure a currency.)


I doubt that the US is worried that it might find its oil supplies from Iran cut off or reduced - because it doesn't rely on Iran for oil supplies. It does, however, rely on trade with countries which do import oil from Iran.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to revert to gold as the international standard. But do we even need one?


Currencies are like goods. They are worth what the market will pay for them. It probably makes life easier for a country if the value of its currency doesn't vary and if that currency is used as some sort of 'standard' - as is the case with petrodollars - it keeps the demand high.


As I said on the other thread, if the Dollar falls dramatically (and it has a very long way to fall before it reaches the depths it did in the 80's) then Americans will be less willing (and less able) to import materials. Which in turn means that those countries which rely on exports to the US won't sell as much and are likely to go into a recession. Any reduction in international trade is bad for everybody, but it's worse for those countries which are not able to be self-sufficient.


People worry about oil prices (and oil is used to carry/manufacture most of the things the world consumes), but I suspect that food price rises are a more serious threat.


The Americans have reduced petrol consumption by about 10%. Not by burning less, but by putting less petrol in a gallon. 10% of most petrol in the US is Ethanol. Ethanol made by growing fuel crops on land which would otherwise be growing food crops.


The prices of agricultural crops used to feed humans have increased, but so has the price of crops used to feed cattle, which in turn has led to beef price rises.


Americans will simply pay more for food, but there will be less food available for export and it will demand higher prices. Those countries in which people spend most of their money buying enough food just to survive will be hardest hit. Those countries who have to import most of their food will be hit twice. The cost of the food will rise and the cost of transporting it will rise, too.


It's probably worth noting that the article in the original post was from "Russia Today". The Cold War is long over, but neither the Russians nor the Americans seem particularly reluctant to take a dig at one another.


Russia would certainly have an interest in reverting to the Gold standard. Russia has the world's largest mineral reserves, is the world's largest gas producer and the world's largest oil producer. It also has 25% of the world's fresh water in the deepest lake in the world (which has furry tadpoles the size of footballs.):hihi:


I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that Russia has more than a passing interest in which currency is used for oil trading.


Russia is working hard to become self-sufficient for food - but it's not there yet and last year, the Russians blocked all wheat exports.


By how much did bread prices in the UK increase last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t.


I don't think it's that simple. Pakistan is also an ally of the US already despite elements opposing the USA. North Korea borders on China which also is a nuclear state so would stand between the USA and North Korea. Israel also plays a part. The US now knows it can't control Iran, having failed to control Iraq and Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.