true. and i never knew iran had any hand in indo-pak wars.
what i do know is that they disregard pakistan totally and have have very good relations at all levels with india.
btw, for some iranian, being persian> being muslim.
also islamic brotherhod or not, iranians have scant respect for arabs.
anyways, here's an interesting article - note the author's name !!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak02.html
War with Iran on the worst terms
By Spengler
Europe has fought two Thirty Years' Wars. The first destroyed nearly half the population of German-speaking Europe between 1618 and 1648, and the second claimed 10 million casualties in its first phase (World War I) and 55 million lives in its second (World War II). In both cases, a century of well-meaning efforts to preserve peace ensured that war, when it came, would last until two generations of soldiers and civilians had been slaughtered. Washington wants to avoid a small war in the Middle East today, and instead may set in motion yet another Thirty Years' War in the region.
Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Its peasants and urban poor gave an overwhelming electoral mandate to a government with imperial ambitions. The government cannot be overthrown, and cannot be derailed. But it can be beaten handily. A few hundred, or at worst a few thousand, sorties by US aircraft at this juncture could put an end to the matter now.
Why is Washington unwilling to take expeditious action? Iran's influence in Iraq is sufficient to throw the latter country into civil war should the United States attack the Islamic Republic. On October 25 (A Syriajevo in the making?), I warned that Iran kept Iraqi Shi'ite militias under its control in readiness to blackmail the United States. US intelligence, I observed, has accused Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of sponsoring the Shi'ite radical leader Muqtada al-Sadr. "If Washington believes that Muqtada is Khamenei's dog, then Khamenei can credibly promise to muzzle him," I wrote them.
US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte spelled out in essence the same scenario before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 1. Negroponte accused Tehran of arming Shi'ite militants in Iraq, warning that Iran has the capacity to broaden the conflict into a wider regional war.
The peace camp, meanwhile, hails Muqtada al-Sadr as the arbiter of civil peace in Iraq. Juan Cole, whose website (juancole.com) offers a running denunciation of the administration of US President George W Bush, reported on February 12 that the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament determined the choice of Ibrahim Jaafari as Iraq's new prime minister.
Writing in salon.com on February 3, Nir Rosen called Muqtada "America's unlike savior", explaining:
On the crucial issues that divide Shi'ite and Sunni, Muqtada sides with the Sunnis. He opposes federalism, which he believes will lead to the breakup of Iraq, and supports amending the constitution. SCIRI [the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq] and the other main Shi'ite party, Dawa, support federalism and refuse to amend the constitution. For Sunnis, federalism means the loss not just of the old Iraq, which they dominated, but also of oil revenue, and they are determined to resist it. Muqtada is their only Shi'ite ally. Inexperienced in foreign affairs and barely experienced in politics, Muqtada may nonetheless be the only figure capable of halting Iraq's steady descent into a civil war that could ignite the entire region.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah received the Shi'ite militant Muqtada in Riyadh last month, an extraordinary gesture from the Saudi monarchy that preceded another extraordinary gesture to Saudi Arabia's own Shi'ite population. For the first time in a generation they were permitted to observe in public the mourning day of Ashura on February 8 (see The blood is the life, Mr Rumsfeld!, October 12, 2005). On Ashura, Shi'ites whip and cut themselves to express in streams of blood their grief over the death of Mohammed's grandson Hussein in AD 680.
Both the concession to the Saudi Shi'ites and the reception of Muqtada represent Saudi gestures to Iran, which is emerging as the arbiter of power in the region. Muqtada already has warned that if the United States attacks Iran, his militias will rise in Iraq. That is not the only warning. "Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists," wrote the Boston Globe on February 12.
# Much as Washington complains about Iran's efforts to arm militant Shi'ites in Iraq, it cannot do anything to hinder this except to deliver and execute a military ultimatum. The longer Washington dallies, the more resources Tehran can put in place, including: Upgrading Hezbollah's offensive-weapon capabilities in Lebanon.
# Integrating Hamas into its sphere of influence and military operations.
# Putting in place terrorist capability against the West.
# Preparing its Shi'ite auxiliaries in Iraq for insurrection.
The problem with postponing war is that the belligerents gain more time to prepare for war. Russia could not abandon the Central European Slavs without losing faith in its own mission, and Austria-Hungary could not accommodate the Slavs without destroying a multi-ethnic empire. Germany could not permit Russia to walk over Austria, for it might not be able to defeat Russia a generation later; France could not let Germany defeat Russia, for it would lose its last chance to prevent German domination of the continent. War might have broken out a half-dozen times prior to August 1914. Postponing war allowed France to cement its alliance with Russia, and France and Russia to ensure Britain's support in the event of hostilities with Germany. A perfect balance of power gives each armed camp assurance if there is no ultimate motivation for war, but in the event of war, it ensures that war will be prolonged and thoroughly destructive.
The 30 Years' War of 1618-48, by the same token, culminated a century of efforts to establish a balance of power between Catholic and Protestant powers in Europe. The 1555 Peace of Augsburg responded to episodic fighting between Protestant princes and the Catholic Empire, agreeing that each prince would establish the religion in his own domain. That did not prevent France from massacring its Huguenots in 1572, or the Spanish from suppressing Protestantism in the Netherlands. As Europe formed into two great and equally balanced camps, a revolt by Bohemian Protestants against the Austrian Empire precipitated the most terrible war in European history.
Today's Shi'ites are the Serbs of the Middle East. Emerging from a millennium of oppression into majority power in Mesopotamia and Persia, the Shi'ites have their first and only opportunity to exact compensation for the humiliation of centuries. They have the misfortune to enter modern history at a point of maximum disadvantage for the peoples of the Middle East, who have few means to compete with the economic powers of East Asia. In Iran, as I have shown elsewhere (Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13, 2005), they face a devastating economic and demographic decline one generation from now. That is why these choose leaders such as Mahmud Ahmedinejad in Tehran and Muqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad.
Washington does not wish to fight but will if necessary. The Europeans, and even the Saudis, will fight rather than allow Iran to become a nuclear power, although they wish to fight much less than Washington.
If Washington were to deliver a military ultimatum to Iran tomorrow, the results would be a painful jump in oil prices, civil violence in Iraq, low-intensity war on Israel's northern border, and a wave of anti-Americanism in the Arab world - not an inviting picture.
But if Washington waits another year to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, the results will be civil war to the death in Iraq, the direct engagement of Israel in a regional war through Hezbollah and Hamas, and extensive terrorist action throughout the West, with extensive loss of American life. There are no good outcomes, only less terrible ones. The West will attack Iran, but only when such an attack will do the least good and the most harm.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
btw, israel will try to pull to pull all strings possible to ensure that usa attacks iran WHILE this madman is their prez. cos he will bite the bait, answer back with counter threats and loony comments. i have a feeling israel wont let this window of oppertunity (to get the dirty work done) slip by.
02-15-2006, 10:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2006, 10:37 AM by ravish.)
<b>I fully confirm the views of mudy . During the 1965 India Pakistan conflict, it was widely speculated in knowledgeable circles that Iran allowed some F-86 aircrafts of its air force to be transferred to PAF for use under PAF marking on actions against India after PAF suffered heavy losses in the initial days of the conflict . In the face of heavy aerial bombardment by the IAF over various military targets in Pakistan, Iran had allowed Pakistan to use some of its airfields for parking of aircrafts particularly during the daytime. It was also alleged that Pakistan provided ammunition and spares to the Pakistan armed forces, when it came under US sanction as a result of the hostilities. The most glaring example of Iran's support for Pakistan came in the form of Iran stopping the supply of Light Arabian Crude to the oil refineries belonging to Standard Vacuum and Burma Shell located in Bombay, which resulted in serious shortage of Aviation Turbine Fuel in India. This was part of a grand Iranian plan to get the aircrafts of the Indian Air Force grounded for lack of fuel. Incidentally, at that point of time India had only three major oil refineries, two in Bombay and one in Madras. Both the refineries in Bombay were designed to refine Iranian Light Arabian Crude. The Iranian action was perhaps expected as it was an important and active member of the CENTO military alliance along with Pakistan and Turkey.
During the 1971 India Pakistan conflict also Iran openly sided with Pakistan and was extremely critical of India and Indiaâs diplomatic moves. I do not off hand recollect the specifics of Iranian actions at that time off hand. The so- called friendship between post independent India and Iran is of very recent vintage, fueled by Indiaâs desire to increase its exports particularly of non traditional goods and services. Today certain political parties are trying to run down the Government on its stand on the Iran nuclear issue as a means of an effective tool to win over the Muslim vote bank in India rather than due to any great service rendered by Iran to India in safeguarding our nationâs sovereignty and territorial integrity.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vikram Sood, Hindustan Times, 15 February 2006
Hunting grounds
<b>The countdown to strike Iran may already have begun</b>
A N INTERNATIONAL posse led by the US has set off along with a motley crowd hunting for one of the two remaining leaders of the Axis of Evil. The British are there, as always, galloping along close to the Americans. The Germans and the French have returned to the fold after staying away in the hunt for Saddam Hussein. The Chinese and the Russians are there too; somewhat reluctant and tentative but there, nevertheless. We are there too, hunting with the Big Boys. Meanwhile, the quarry waits, defiant and refusing to run.
The Iran nuclear crisis continues to gather steam as the world watches. A good deal of hope is pinned on the February 16 meeting between the Russians and the Iranians but the latter are saying they won't talk any more. There is no point, they say. The Iranian leader is neither crazy nor is the regime worse than that of the Nazis as his Western detractors would have us believe. On the contrary, the regime has gathered domestic support for standing up to the Great Satan.
The tactics used at the time of the buildup preceding the Iraqi invasion have been used once again. A scare scenario, with the neo-con sections of the US media pitching in, threatening statements from US leaders and Condoleezza Rice saying the time for talking is over. Other dire warnings are becoming shriller and more frequent. There is elaborate discussion about military strikes.
US intelligence assesses Iran is a decade away from making the bomb but administration officials chose to ignore this. They say Iran has the capability to make a bomb. It has the intention to make a bomb. This situation was intolerable, but that they would give diplomacy a chance. And if that fails, then obviously the course of action recommended by Richard Perle, a powerful neo-con who was one of the chief advocates of the Iraq invasion and chairman of the Defence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003, will be followed.
Recently, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Perle told the Reuters correspondent that "if you want to wait until the very last minute, you'd better be very confident of your intelligence because if you're not, you won't know when the last minute is." He also said, "And so, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is, you'd better be careful how long you choose to wait. I can't tell you when we may face a similar choice with Iran. But it's either take action now or lose the option of taking action." This makes it appear that the countdown may have begun.
It is also unlikely that the CIA has had any great intelligence from Iran. Moreover, it may be of the same level as was in the case of Iraq. Whatever intelligence it may have would be from defectors similar to that in Iraq. There are some other possibilities. James Risen, in his unflattering book on the CIA called State of War â the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration has described a too-clever-by-half CIA operation in which some dud intelligence about making a nuclear bomb was passed on to the Iranians through a Russian defector. The underlying assumption was that the Iranians were too dumb to understand this game. As it turned out, they were not â the Russian was working for them. It is also possible that in this hare-brained scheme the CIA gave away more intelligence than they intended to, facilitating the making of the bomb.
The additional possibility could be that General Musharraf has now come clean about the extent of assistance the Pakistanis gave to the Iranians in the making of the bomb. A. Q. Khan is only a convenient fall guy in this, for he could simply not have given away secrets without higher approval. In the past, the CIA had shielded Khan when the Dutch wanted him arrested for stealing secrets. It is possible all this may be causing the Americans some anxiety, although if there were something substantial to this, then they would have broadcast it far and wide.
The Russians see this as an opportunity to get into a position to play a role in West Asia, apart from the Bushehr nuclear plant that they are constructing on the Persian Gulf coast. They would also have worries that some of the secrets or material that may have been passed on to Iran or purchased by the Iranians in the chaotic days that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. There is an oil swap arrangement with the Russians who ship crude to Iran where it is refined for domestic consumption. In return, the Iranians give the Russians an equivalent amount of oil for shipment to nonEuropean buyers. Sanctions would cut off supplies to Europe from Iran and increase its dependence on the Russians.
The Chinese have huge stakes in the Khuzestan province of Iran, which produces 90 per cent of the oil. The China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation has a 50 per cent stake in the Yadavaran oil field. On the one hand, the Chinese would not want to be a party to any sanctions on Iran, as this would affect its supplies. On the other, neither Russia nor China would really mind if the Americans got sucked in deeper into the Iranian quagmire that threatens to be far worse than the Iraqi quagmire.
The US seems determined to go ahead with destabilising the Ahmadinejad regime. There were reports earlier of the Mujaheddin-eKhalq, till recently on the terrorist watch list, being rehabilitated and used from Afghanistan and Balochistan to incite trouble in eastern Iran. Similarly, there is renewed interest in the Khuzestan province in southwest Iran on the Iraqi border. Since last year more and more incidents have been reported from this area with a predominantly Arab Shia population akin to the population in Iraq. Control of this province will enable control of the wealth of Iran leading to a possible regime change and the return of US companies to Iran.
As Iran gets closer to the proposed date of opening its oil bourse dealing in euros on March 20, the petrodollar is at risk of ultimately losing its pre-eminence in oil dealings. Neither the Russians nor the Europeans would mind selling or buying oil in euros. Oil may cease to be billed in dollars. So far, the US has been able to go to war despite its massive budget and trade deficits because major buyers like Japan, China, the EU and oil producers have purchased US debt and hold dollar denominated assets. All that these countries have to do is dump the dollar to precipitate a crisis in the US economy. Naturally, the US cannot allow this to happen.
The Iranians are to be denied the bomb even while US nuclear weapon scientists at Livermore and Los Alamos are working on a new hydrogen bomb design. This, if successful, will lead to highly automated factories producing more warheads and of new kinds.
But it is more than just the nuclear bomb. It is more than the charge that Iran is aiding terrorism. It is ultimately a question of command and control. Halford Mackinder, British geographer, economist and politician said about 85 years ago, Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland/ Who rules the Heartland commands the WorldIsland/ Who rules the World-Island commands the World.
Today, instead of East Europe, it is the Caspian region that commands the Heartland.
<i>
Note: Vikram Sood, recently retired head of India's foreign intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)</i> ,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Iran ready to counter US aggression</b>Â
Agence France-Presse
Tehran, February 15, 2006
Iran is ready to counter any US aggression with offensive action, the head of elite Revolutionary Guards, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, told state television on Wednesday.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bravo!! That is why we don't want Mullahs to have nuke.
<b>Right turn</b>
<i>Now we are getting clear on Iran and the 18-July agreement.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The RSS position against Iranâs weaponisation perhaps tied the BJPâs hands from politically milking the situation, but this once again shows the RSSâs capacity to rise above Sangha interests to uphold the countryâs security. Incidentally, although both sides would deny it, the RSS is fairly sold on Manmohan Singh, it believes he is nationalistic to the core, and to be trusted on core national interests. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark
The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraqâs oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.
rest of article here -
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1936
for - Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran
by Michael Keefer
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1885
for - The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis
by Thierry Meyssan
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3...44,00.html
for - Iran takes on west's control of oil trading
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=48101
for - Trading oil in euros â does it matter?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.as...E_ID=48751
Iran, Venezuela declare war on petrodollar
Iran and Venezuela have joined forces in an effort to undermine the U.S. dollar. In October 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela was ready to move the country's foreign-exchange holdings out of the dollar and into the euro. He also called for the creation of a South American central bank designed to hold in euros all the foreign-exchange holdings of the participating countries.
Beginning in 2003, Iran began demanding oil payment in euros, not dollars, although the oil itself was still priced in dollars. Iran has announced the intention of opening an Iranian Oil Bourse in March to challenge NYMEX (the New York Mercantile Exchange) and IPE (London's International Petroleum Exchange).
Saddam Hussein may well have signed his death warrant in 2000 when he began the process of convincing the United Nations that Iraq could sell Iraqi oil for euros, not dollars. Saddam ultimately received U.N. permission to convert Iraq's $10 billion oil-for-food foreign reserves from dollars to euros.
The risk to the United States does not involve how oil is priced â oil could conceivably be priced in any liquid currency, since pricing is a largely technical issue needed to establish transaction values. The real issue is foreign-currency reserves.
The United States relies on approximately 70 percent of all foreign-exchange currency to be held in dollars because we sell Treasury debt into that foreign-exchange market. Should Venezuela and Iran succeed in creating a worldwide flight of foreign-exchange reserves away from the dollar and into the euro, the move could depress the value of the dollar.
Dwindling foreign exchange dollar holdings could end up pushing the Treasury to sell debt into a smaller international supply of dollars, with the dollar not being as strong as it is today. Increasing the cost of our "twin deficits" â the budget deficit and the trade deficit â would have detrimental effects on the U.S. economy and on a Bush administration which seems to have lost traditional Republican budgetary discipline.
As the world's foreign-exchange currency market expands, we should probably expect some reduction in the dollar holdings of central banks. A move to hold more euros may simply represent a decision by a central bank to diversify their foreign-currency holdings, thereby hedging their risk from fluctuations in the dollar. Venezuela and Iran have in mind a politically motivated decision to move out of foreign-exchange currency holdings in the dollar as a conscious decision to wage economic war against America.
In 2004, the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlement reported that the U.S. dollar-denominated deposits of OPEC countries fell from 75 percent of their total deposits in the third quarter of 2001 to 61.5 percent by the end of 2003. In the same period, the share of euro-denominated deposits of OPEC countries rose from 12 percent to 20 percent. OPEC member euro-denominated deposits reached 44 billion in June 2004, nearly double the 23.4 billion euros these countries held in the third quarter of 2001. In the same period of time, the dollar holdings of the OPEC member countries decreased from $145.3 billion to $132.1 billion.
In 2005, China negotiated major oil and natural-gas rights from Iran. Now under pressure of being referred to the Security Council over their nuclear program, Iran is counting on China to veto any strong move by the United States to have Iran sanctioned.
After Japan, China has the world's second-largest cache of foreign-exchange currency â some $800 billion today â an amount that is expected to grow to $1 trillion this year. In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75 percent of its foreign-exchange reserves currently held in the dollar. Economists widely expect China's move will put downward pressure on the dollar, depending on how much diversification China decides to make into other world currencies. As Iran struggles to fight off world pressure over the defiant path it has chosen to take in pursuing nuclear technologies, Iran might well seek to convince China to hold significantly fewer dollars in their foreign-exchange reserves.
Venezuela and Iran have much in common â both countries are radically anti-America, both have extensive oil reserves, both are resolved to use oil as an economic weapon against the United States. The three countries voting against the IAEA resolution on Feb. 4 were Cuba, Syria and Venezuela. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just accepted an invitation from Fidel Castro to visit Havana to attend the Sept. 11-16 Non-Aligned Summit and most likely to address the Cuban National Assembly.
A Tehran-Caracas Axis clearly extends also to Havana and Damascus. Whether we realize it or not, we are already involved in an economic war that could easily turn into a shooting war, starting with Iran.
it may be a good idea is iran switches to the euro.
eu would like to keep it that way usa would not.
http://www.raptureready.com/soap/iran.htm
Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on their beds! At morning's light they carry it out because it is in their power to do it. They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance.
Therefore, the LORD says: "I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. You will no longer walk proudly, for it will be a time of calamity. (Micah 2:1-3)
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" (Hebrews 13:5-6)
With all the talk about Iran's suspected nuclear capability and what the world should be doing to stop its development, a darker and even more sinister Iranian plot against the US is receiving little public attention. It concerns how the world currently purchases oil, and how Iran, the world's number two producer, is working to change that.
Today there are two oil exchanges in the world, in New York and London, and both require payment in American dollars. This means that any oil purchasing country has to keep large reserves of US currency on hand to fund their ongoing needs. Most Americans assume that the value of their money is pretty constant, but like just about everything else in the world the dollar's value in international markets is determined by the demand for it.
As countries purchase and pay for oil, their dollar reserves are depleted and they have to buy more of them to make sure they'll always have enough for future purchases. As the price of oil keeps going up an artificial demand for the US dollar has been created that according to some analysts has inflated its value on world markets by as much as 25 to 40%. But since both of the world's oil exchanges are owned by American interests, there's not much anyone can do about it. The US benefits greatly by this as it keeps the prices of foreign goods Americans buy lower than they would otherwise be, and also makes the purchase of foreign oil much less expensive.
How In The World Did That Happen?
How does a country get that kind of clout in the world market place? Good question, and here's the briefest of summaries in answer. I developed this summary in part from an excellent article entitled The Proposed Iranian Oil Burse by Krassimir Petrov. Petrov is an Austrian Macro Economist/Investment Strategist with a Ph. D. in economics from Ohio State University. He teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. You can read the entire article, and I hope you do, at http://www.masternewmedia.org/.
Historically, American dollars were backed by gold, and by the early 20th century the US economy had become the world's strongest. But recovering from the Stock Market crash and Great Depression required such a level of spending that Franklin Roosevelt had to detach the dollar from its gold backing in 1932. The US simply didn't have enough gold to cover all the money he needed to print.
Thirteen years later the US, having required gold as payment for weapons and war materiel it sold to other countries during WW2, owned most of the world's gold. This allowed the US to restore the gold standard (but only for dealing with other nations) in 1945, making the now strong again dollar the reserve currency of the world.
In the mid 1960's Lyndon Johnson's simultaneous goals of fighting the Viet Nam war and eliminating poverty at home required detaching the dollar from gold again to permit the printing of enough currency to meet the expense of these two costly goals. (Both were failures.) When nations demanded gold for their dollars as they had been promised since 1945, the US refused and formally defaulted on its commitment on August 15, 1971. It was tantamount to declaring bankruptcy, but the US was powerful enough otherwise to get away with paying the nations of the world for the goods and services they had provided in dollars backed only by the "full faith and credit" of the USA.
The following year, to restore confidence in the dollar, the US signed an iron clad agreement with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, where in return for US support and protection, the Saudis agreed to only accept US dollars for their oil and convinced the rest of OPEC to do the same. Now, even though other countries can't get gold for their dollars, they can get oil. (Some speculate that the real reason for the US war in Iraq is that Saddam Hussein tried to break this agreement and sell his oil for Euros and Yen. According to this view, the US deposed him as an example to keep other OPEC countries from following suit and causing the dollar to plummet.)
And Now For Round Two
Iran now proposes to challenge the US by opening its own oil exchange called the Iranian Oil Burse, or IOB, and permitting customers to pay in Euros, the currency of Iran's largest trading partner. They plan to begin offering their oil on the IOB beginning in March 2006. If successful, it means that countries will soon have the choice of paying OPEC for their oil with inflated US dollars or effectively receiving a 25% discount by purchasing it from Iran in Euros. Just about every country in the world will benefit greatly by this, especially the EU, whose currency would immediately become much stronger and more stable in world financial markets.
Everyone except the US that is, where foreign oil costs would skyrocket as the dollar declined in value, as would the cost of all other foreign goods. Within a few years, the US economy would decline to near third world status, and its national debt, which has again risen to record levels, would be impossible to repay. In short, the most powerful nation on earth would again be bankrupt as countries around the world dump large portions of their dollar reserves to buy Euros, driving its value even lower.
Some experts have calculated that this would be more devastating to the US than if Iran exploded a nuclear warhead in one of our major cities or wiped out our electronics with an EMP detonation. Even though America's military power would still be intact, at least for the time being, Iran would have done nothing that could justify retaliation. Iran could rightly say that they've only employed a lesson from free market capitalism, providing the world a much needed commodity at a better price.
The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. (Rev. 17:12)
This would also hasten the shift of global power from the US to Europe as Bible Prophecy suggests. The Euro, which floundered following France's defeat of the proposed EU constitution, would become the world's financial reserve currency like the dollar is now and the British pound sterling once was. EU countries like Italy that went off the Euro in favor of their former currency, would come flocking back, and the EU economy, already larger than that of the US, would get a huge shot in the arm.
You Gonna Let 'Em Get Away With That?
Obviously, the US can't just stand by and let that happen, so how does Iran expect to pull this off? After all, look at what happened to Saddam. It turns out that there are two things working in Iran's favor that Saddam didn't have going for him. First of all the US, thanks in no small part to Iran and its partner Syria, is deeply entangled in a very expensive ($100,000 US per minute!) war in Iraq with no quick end in sight.
Almost no one in the world believes that the US could afford to engineer a "regime change" in Iran at the same time, with all that would entail, although that's eventually what it will take to permanently stop Iran. But with Israel's help the US could use Iran's nuclear ambitions as a pretext to mount a massive pre-emptive strike, temporarily putting a stop to both the nuclear program and the IOB.
And that brings us to the second thing. Iran doesn't have to succeed to win this battle. In fact, in some ways, the bigger the mess they create, the better. Iran has leaders who believe that by plunging the world into utter chaos they can hasten the return of the Islamic Messiah, or Mahdi, the hidden 12th Imam, and they believe the time is right.
In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern faced king, a master of intrigue will arise. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will cause deceit to prosper and will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, (by means of peace, KJV) he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of Princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power. (Daniel 8:23-25)
To that end it appears from current news reports that Iran has two potentially war inducing events planned for March of 2006. The first is their initial underground test of a nuclear weapon. (That ought to put to rest the debate about just how close Iran is to going nuclear!) And the second is the opening of the IOB.
Either one should be enough to prompt a US (or Israeli, or both) attack, and that's just what Iran's President wants. By getting a foreign, preferably western nation to mount a pre-emptive attack on his country, the President of Iran believes he can force the world into a war devastating enough to bring the Mahdi back to Earth to judge Islam's enemies and inaugurate the promised universal peace under Islamic rule. Our last article gave you all the details on this.
Of course, you and I know that this plan will only work if the King of the Universe is ready to fire the starting pistol to begin Earth's race to the End Times. But it sure will make the month of March one of the most exciting yet. Better stay alert. If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the Footsteps of the Messiah. 02-11-06
so there you have it folks !!!
<b>France Says Iran Seeks Nuke Weapons</b>
Suddenly, Europe had joined US, I was thinking, why? How?
Cartoon came out in Oct and last month they republished again in multiple newspapers, what it did was created violence against Western countries which is now called as âfreedom of speechâ attack on Western way of life etc.
And now every European country is against Iran nuke. France and Russia never supported US on Iran, but now they agree. Lot changed after riots in France.
Current environment is openly against Islamic nuke, which will help US agenda.
So who was involved in republishing cartoon and flaming anger?
You got it right. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The IAEA voting took place before the cartoon controversy took this aggressive turn. For India it is a good opportunity to get something more from the West in the bargain. The RSS and BJP are now with the Government on this issue, so the Government will be in stronger position to face the Left Front and in the process some more economic liberalisation measures may get passed in this session of parliament.
<!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:omg--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/omg.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='omg.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Reformist Iranian Internet Daily:
<b>A New Fatwa States That Religious Law Does Not Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons</b>
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD109606 .
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A New Fatwa States That Religious Law Does Not Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD109606<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which states that "the shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons.
'when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-[measure]. According to the shari'a, too, only the goal is important...
Iran have launched a new effort to prepare the religious grounds for use of these weapons..."
Sure.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The IAEA voting took place before the cartoon controversy took this aggressive turn<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was secondary step.
Agenda was well defined 3 years back. If you can recall "State of Union" speech where "Axis of evil" were clearly spell out.
Current environment will make reluctant partner to toe same line.
[Mr Mudy , what is your view? Are u for Iran becoming a nuclear weapon State or will feel more comfortable to see that it remains a non nuclear weapon State.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Mr Mudy , what is your view? Are u for Iran becoming a nuclear weapon State or will feel more comfortable to see that it remains a non nuclear weapon State.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want nuke in Mullah's hand or any Islamic state.
I know this is not possible in long run. US let Pakistan have nuke, which achieved US short term goal but created world disaster for ever.
World failed to understand Islam. Indic Civilization is a victim of Islam and knows consequence of spread of Islam. Now Russia, Pakistan, China is helping Iran.
Sooner or later these mullahs will get hold of nukes and will use on innocent ârest of worldâ and that will be end of civilization on earth. We can delay dooms days but itâs going to happen. Either delay spread of Islam or delay trigger in Mullahâs hand.
US/West policies are still fuzzy. They are avoiding core problem. Adhoc solutions will create more problems in long run.
"Prevention is always better than cure"
-Ms Mudy
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Nuke trees uprooted in Tehran </b>
London
<b>More than 7,000 trees containing incriminating nuclear traces have been uprooted in a Tehran park close to the Lavizan Atomic Research Centre to prevent United Nations inspectors from finding traces of enriched uranium, the Daily Telegraph reported on Monday quoting Western intelligence sources.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain' </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll," senior Iranian national security official Javad Vaeedi said in an interview with Reuters.
Iran, the world's No. 4 oil provider, also said it would review its oil export policy should the Security Council tackle its case, which EU powers said was now inevitable as Tehran had flouted demands to prove it was not secretly after atomic bombs.
"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," Vaeedi said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure whether US have any "B" plan.
<b>Israel will have to act on Iran if UN can't </b> -Reuters
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.
<b>"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," </b>Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think Israel will do Iraq on Iran. Geo-political situation is very different.
Best option for west to make Iran fight with some other nation. Right now Pakistan comes to my mind.
|
