I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Jun 03, 2004 Posts: 127 Location: Great Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
It looks to me that if America goes down it will try to bring the rest of the world down with it. I just cannot see that country just sitting back and cooperating when things get tough. They will destroy the world, and this country will probably join them given our strong links. Dear me.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Novus wrote:
IndigoMoon wrote:
Medeno wrote:
H.CON.RES.362 now has 169 Cosponsors (another 23 in the last two days). There are I believe 535 house members. I would think this would be the top of the headlines. For more information and current status, check,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.con.res.00362:
I just checked. The sponsor count is now 208.
So the US house is 60 votes away from declaring war on Iran. As the Persians would say: "THIS IS MADNESS!"
Last night it was 208. This morning it is 220. I guess the count down is on. _________________ Live simply, love generously, care deeply, and speak kindly.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass;
It's about learning how to dance in the rain.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Jotapay wrote:
Buggy wrote:
Jotapay wrote:
Buggy wrote:
Sorry if I don't hop on the Iran love wagon here, but they have been asking for it since 1979. Are there ANY republicans in here?
I'm old school conservative, but I would not be caught dead around the Jesus-freak, Israel-supporting, science-hatin', corporate lapdogs who call themselves Republicans these days and who voted for George Bush twice in a row. You should be ashamed of yourself. DIAF.
Nice to see that whole liberal tolerance mechanism kicking. Such a pragmatic paradox.
You must have missed this part. I'll spell it out for the cheap seats:
Jotapay wrote:
I'M OLD SCHOOL CONSERVATIVE....
I guess being a small government, laissez faire capitalist, personal freedoms and personal responsibility kinda guy is liberal now. From a fascist point of view, I suppose that's possible.
I think I just heard some Israeli jerking your chain. Better see what he wants.
My mistake. It's hard to hear from the cheap seats. I must have missed the part where calling people Israel-supporting, science-hatin', Jesus freaks is an old school conservative attribute.
Jotapay wrote:
Quote:
Buggy, read up on U.S., British and French involvement in Iran for the past 100 years, then put the shoe on the other foot. See how it fits, then get back to us.
Yes. Bad foreign policy. I addressed that. Shoe on the other foot? Have you? If so, what are you, a 100 year old Iranian? What is this about getting back to "us"? Did you take a poll? Is it now Peak Oil against Buggy because I didn't go with the flow and want to love all over poor, misunderstood Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the guy who says the holocaust didn't happen and would blow Israel off the map in a heartbeat if he could get away with it?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Just a couple of historical issues to consider regarding Iran and western oil imperialism - and an ironic parallel between the British naval blockade of 1951 and the proposed US Naval blockade of 2008...
First, it is simply not possible to understand today's US-Iranian relationship without understanding the events of 1951-1953. By far, the best book on this subject is All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer. I highly recommend this book, and IMO, outlining how the CIA carried out operation AJAX would also make an excellent movie.
First, a little history lesson is warranted:
During the two great wars of the 20th century, oil often proved to be the defining natural resource that was required to project military power on the sea, air, and land. Indeed, oil factored into victories and defeats during major military campaigns throughout the century.
At the onset of the 20th century, Germany recognized the importance of oil, and from 1899 to 1914, attempted to build a ‘Berlin-to-Baghdad’ railroad. Along with an advanced naval fleet, the German railroad project created a significant geopolitical rift with the British Empire.
At the time the British Navy was determined to convert her fleet from coal-burning to oil-burning ships, and Berlin’s plans to gain access to large amounts of petroleum in modern day Iraq was a important but hidden factor in Britain’s declaration of war against Germany in 1914. In 1918, the final year of WWI, Sir Maurice Hankey, Britain’s First Secretary of the War Cabinet wrote,
Quote:
Oil in the next war will occupy the place of coal in the present war, or at least a parallel place to coal. The only big potential supply that we can get under British control is the Persian [now Iran] and Mesopotamian [now Iraq] supply…Control over these oil supplies becomes a first class British war aim.
Not surprisingly, the British did exactly what Sir Hankey recommended; in 1919 they carved-up the defeated Ottoman Empire and colonized the oil-rich regions of Iran and Iraq.
Life was good for the British for a few decades following their control of Iran's oil wealth - especially because 80% to 85% of the profits from the Anglo-Iranian oil company (later to become British Petrolem or BP) - went straight to London's coffers.
On the other hand, the Iranians got a bit tired of being so exploited, and by the late 1940s they hated the British and their colonial occupiers (see modern day Iraq for historical parallels)
These sentiments were shared by an Iranian politician in his early 60s, Mohammed Mossadegh, a staunch nationalist and anti-communist. He insisted that Iran be allowed to audit the accounting books from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This was a matter of due diligence to Mossadegh, who believed that Iran was not receiving its fair financial return from its vital oil exports. The British steadfastly refused.
Well, in 1951 the Parliament democratically elected Mossadegh as the Prime Minister of Iran, and he promptly nationalized Iran's oil. He offered the British a 50/50 split (which Saudi Arabia and other nations had recently negotiated with the American gov't/US oil companies). Mossadegh's approval rating was around 90% after he nationalized their oil, and offered a compromise with the UK.
However, Iran's proposal for a 50/50 split was unacceptable to the UK elites, and British Prime Minister Arden organized a naval blockade of Iran, froze its overseas financial assets, and claimed that Iran’s nationalization of its own oil was illegal. However, the World Court upheld Mossadegh’s action. In 1951, Time named Mossadegh Man of the Year, describing him as “the Iranian George Washington” but also as an exasperating, “defiant man [who] dissolved one of the remaining pillars of a great empire.”
Undeterred by this turn of events or by Mossadegh’s popularity with the Iranian people, Churchill asked Truman to help overthrow Mossadegh and regain British control over Iran’s oil export revenue. Truman declined and attempted to foster diplomatic mediation. However, in February 1953 Allen Dulles sent the newly sworn-in President Eisenhower a ridiculous intelligence estimate suggesting that a “Communist takeover is becoming more and more of a possibility” in Iran.
Eisenhower subsequently agreed to a covert operation in Iran code-named Ajax. In Operation Ajax, the CIA successfully overthrew Mossadegh in August 1953. The CIA then installed Mohammed Shah, a member of the Iranian monarchy who later became despised as a US puppet. The Shah used the brutal SAVAK secret police force to maintain his grip on power. Widespread political imprisonments, torture, and killings ultimately radicalized Iranian society.
This “blowback” ultimately resulted in the deportation of the Shah to the US and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Kinzer’s research shows that many Iranians were very pro-US before the CIA’s successful coup of Iran’s fledging democracy:
Quote:
Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?’ a relative of Mossadegh demands of Kinzer. ‘We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’
The answer to her question can be summarized in one word — greed, stemming from powerful oil interests enacting unwarranted influence on British and American foreign policies.
So, here we are, 50+ years later... Not much has changed in the five decades since Mossadegh’s ouster. The Western “participants” in the Middle East are essentially the same, although the US is now the principal provocateur, and the “Communist threat” has of course morphed into the vague and ever-useful “terrorist threat.”
However, the main actors are becoming more desperate as Peak Oil looms, and now the US Congress is asking for a naval blockade of Iran, even though it does not pose a direct threat to US national security. Why are the Americans following a similar pattern of madness that inflcited the British 57 years ago? Well, just as Mossadegh was described as an exasperating, “defiant man [who] dissolved one of the remaining pillars of a great empire.” Today, Ahmadinejad, the current Iranian president, is also trying to "dissolve one of the remaining pillars of a great empire."
This time it is the declining US empire that is fighting back, and the pillar that is eroding is the US dollar itself. Unlike the subservient, pro-imperial US media conglomerates, you can read about the underlying conflict in the foreign media. For example:
Feb 21, 2008
Slouching towards Petroeurostan
By Pepe Escobar
It was a discreet, almost hush-hush affair, but after almost three years of stalling and endless delays it finally happened. Now more than ever, it may also signal a geoeconomic earthquake, a potentially shattering blow to US dollar hegemony.
The Iranian oil bourse - the first oil, gas and petrochemical exchange in the Islamic Republic, and the first within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) - was launched on Sunday by Iran’s Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari, flanked by Minister of Economy and Financial Affairs Davoud Danesh Ja’fari, the man who will head the exchange.
Officially called the Iranian International Petroleum Exchange(IIPE), it is widely known in Iran and the Persian Gulf as the Kish bourse, named after Kish island, a free zone (declared by the shah) in an ideal laissez faire setting: lots of condos and duty-free malls, no Khomeini mega-portraits and hordes of young honeymooners shopping for made-in-Europe home appliances.
Transactions at this early stage will be in Iran’s currency, the rial, according to Nozari, ending worldwide speculation that the bourse would start trading in euros. The Iranian ambassador to Russia, Gholam-Reza Ansari, has said that "in the future, we'll be able to use the ruble, Russia’s national currency, in our operations". He added that "Russia and Iran, two major producers of the world’s energy, should encourage oil and gas transactions in various non-dollar currencies, releasing the world from being a slave of the dollar."
Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said last week that "the ruble will de facto become one of the regional reserve currencies".
...We shall see, but my advice is follow the money, and today's events make a lot more sense...
Quote:
The opening of the exchange is just what the Iranians are calling the first phase. Ultimately, it is intended that it will compete directly against London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by US corporations (since 2001, NYMEX has been owned by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley). What Iran plans to do in the long run is quite daring: to confront head-on Anglo-American energy/corporate banking domination of the international oil trade.
...and getting back to this ideal of a naval blockade and the ongoing petrodollar warfare that began back in 2000 with Saddam's switch to the euro for Iraq's oil exports...
Quote:
The empire will strike back
The opening of the Iran oil bourse comes at a time when the future of the US dollar as the world's dominant currency is in doubt as seldom before.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, mega-speculator George Soros stressed that the world was at the end of the dollar era and a "systemic failure" may be upon us. On February 8 in Dubai, OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri told the London-based Middle East Economic Digest that OPEC may switch to the euro within a decade. Iran and Venezuela - supported by Ecuador - are campaigning inside OPEC for oil to be priced at least in a basket of currencies and according to OPEC’s current president, Chakib Khelil, the organization's finance ministers will soon meet to discuss the possibility in depth. A committee will "submit to OPEC its recommendation on a basket of currencies that OPEC members will deal with", according to Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani.
To be sure, there’s no evidence yet that ultra-cautious US ally Saudi Arabia would incur Washington’s wrath by supporting such a move. {...that's a major understatment...} But as for Iran, OPEC's second-largest exporter, it no longer trades a single barrel of oil in dollars. That is no small amount of non-dollars. The country's oil revenue will reach US$63 billion by the end of the current Iranian year on March 20, according to Nozari.
Iran converted all its oil export payments to other currencies in December 2007. It now sells oil to Japan in yen - the Far East country, the world's second biggest economy, is the top importer of Iranian oil and Iran is Japan’s third-largest supplier. Worryingly for the dollar, other oil producers are preparing to follow Iran's lead. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani has already announced that the tiny oil-rich emirate would abandon the dollar for the Qatari riyal before summer. There’s a strong possibility the United Arab Emirates may also switch to its own currency.
As the Kish bourse picks up momentum, increasing amounts of oil and gas trading will happen in a basket of currencies - and increasingly the US dollar will lose its paramount status. Some Middle East analysts expect the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies to end their dollar currency peg sooner rather than later - some say as early as next summer, as their black gold will increasingly not be traded in dollars. Iranian economist Hamid Varzi stresses that the "psychological effect" of Iran’s move away from the US dollar is "encouraging others to follow suit". {....this is already well underway, and will likely accelerate from 2008 to 2010}
Iranian officials have always maintained that Washington has threatened to disrupt the country's oil exchange - via an online virus, attempted regime change or even through a unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strike. Certainly some analysts argue that the strength of the US dollar, like the strength of the British pound before that, is a reflection of, and is maintained by, those countries' military strength (see Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck, Asia Times Online, March 10, 2006).
On the other hand, the possible success of the exchange may be crucial to signal the US’s waning power in a world evolving towards multipolarity. The Saudis and the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies have already decided to reduce their US dollar holdings. Washington, sooner or later, may have to pay for its oil and gas imports in euros. {...I seriosuly doubt that the dollar will be locked out altogether in the near to intermediate term, but anyway...}
No wonder Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is so demonized by Washington as he repeats that the empire of the dollar is falling. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal conceded during the latest OPEC summit in Riyadh that the dollar would collapse if OPEC decided to switch to euros or a basket of currencies. During a closed meeting - with the microphones on, by mistake - Prince Saud said: "My feeling is that the mere mention that OPEC countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact that endangers the interests of the countries. There will be journalists who will seize on this point and we don't want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for OPEC."
The trillion-dollar question is if, and when, most European and Asian oil importers may stampede towards the Iranian oil bourse. OPEC members as well as oil producers from the Caspian may be inevitably seduced by the advantages of selling at Kish - with no dreaded middlemen. Europeans, Chinese and Japanese will also see benefits if they can buy oil with euros, yen or even yuan - they won’t need US dollars – and the same applies to their central banks.
It would take only a few major oil exporters to switch from the dollar to the euro - or the yen - to fatally bomb the petrodollar mothership. Venezuela, Norway and Russia are all ready to say goodbye to the petrodollar. France officially supports a stronger role for the euro in international oil trade.
It may be a long way away, but ultimately the emergence of a new oil marker in euros in Kish will lead the way to the petroeuro global oil trade. The European Union imports much more oil from OPEC than the US, and 45% of Middle East imports also come from the EU.
The symbolism of the Iranian oil bourse is stark; it shows that the flight from the US dollar is irreversible - and so, sooner rather than later, is diminution of Washington's capacity to launch wars on credit. But at this early stage in the game, only one thing is certain: the empire will strike back.
...as they say, history has a tendency to repeat itself...too bad the average American (including most of Congress), does not have much understanding of the history of the Middle East over the past 100 years since their oil was first discovered.
My concern? A US blockade of Iran could interrupt their oil exports, and $200 per barrel could shortly thereafter be considered cheap oil. Of course such US belligerency might very well cause the Chinese to consider unloading a few hundred billion of their US treasuries as a sign of their displeasure...and that's when the slowly unfolding dollar crisis becomes front page news...not to mention that Venezuela has threatened to stop shipping oil to the US if we attack Iran. It could be a major panic here, not to mention gasoline shortages within a month of any such overt hostilities.
Bottomline: A US Naval blockade of Iran would be bad news for the whole world, but with a potentially devestating outcome for the highly-indebted US gov't, and profoundly oil-addicted US citizen.
Last edited by Petrodollar on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:40 pm; edited 9 times in total
Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1185 Location: Central NC
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Great summary Petrodollar. _________________ "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: New Congressional Resolution Declares War with Iran
This is so big, I had to come back to give you this one.
Historically, naval blockades have always been recognized as an act of war.
A House resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction on May 22 the resolution has attracted 205 cosponsors.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S. RES 580 has gained cosponsors rapidly. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has now accrued 26 cosponsors.
These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.
The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.
He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.
link _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Joined: Sep 03, 2007 Posts: 637 Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: Re: New Congressional Resolution Declares War with Iran
I'm too close to the water table to build a bomb shelter. Think I'll have to look at a mounded setup.
Am I worried about Iran? Hell no. However, this thing could very easily get out of control, and there are plenty of nukes elsewhere. What a lovely frackin' government we've gotten ourselves into. _________________ When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: Re: New Congressional Resolution Declares War with Iran
Old News Cid, but good to see you.
OLD NEWS _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 819 Location: Eastern NC
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: Re: New Congressional Resolution Declares War with Iran
Slight correction Cid,
A "Democraticly controlled" House resolution.
Tunes from the future "but we didn't give any authority for him to do that...", or " we were lead astray..." or " I voted for the blockade before I voted against the blockade"
Important rule for Republicans, never go to war with Democrates on your side, they turn chickens**t on you if things don't go as expected.
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
PO = global economic collapse and die off
Bomb Iran = global economic collapse and die off
The only difference is timing.
Clearly YOU would want one to occur on YOUR terms to maximize YOUR survival chances.
Got bunker? I do... _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Israel (and USA, and all countries of the world) should be responsible using the SAME ETHICAL STANDARDS. A murderer is a murderer everywhere; they're no "heroes".
SILENTTODD wrote:
Iran has never deliberately attacked an American Naval vessel with the intent of murdering all on board as Israel has.
Joined: Jun 03, 2004 Posts: 127 Location: Great Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
That's an excellent post Petrodollar, I learnt a lot from that.
Do you think that the US really will attack Iran? Will it just be a military strike by Israel on it's nuclear facilities or a wider invasion with the US joining in? What would the US have to gain by attacking or blockading Iran and what would China and Russia make of it? How might they react. And Europe.
Anyone can answer as well..
I have always been sceptical of an attack on Iran but recent events are changing my mind.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
