Friday, February 18, 2005

Euro Power? 

Over at the Online Journal, there’s a very interesting followup analysis by Linda Heard to the idea that there is a deal between the Shiites and the oil companies for a division of power. It’s probably just me, and everyone else has already thought of this, but in case you haven’t, here’s the bit that struck me:

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may not have possessed the fabled nasty weapons and neither was he buddy-buddy with Osama. What he actually did was far worse in the eyes of the Bush clan.

In 2000 he decided to give the petrodollar the elbow and trade, instead, in euros. In the four proceeding years, the euro has gained 20 per cent against the American currency.
Of course, the export of Iraqi oil was swiftly relinked to the greenback after the Americans rode into town.

OPEC was expected to be duly shocked and awed by the Iraq debacle and if its member countries had any ideas of switching to euros, which after all would make good financial sense in light of the dollar's weakness and the fact Europe buys more oil from OPEC than the United States, it was hoped they would think again.

Iraq's neighbour, Iran, is now on the brink of going one step further. It not only wants to see euros taking the place of the ailing dollar on the international energy markets, it plans to set-up its own oil bourse in direct competition with London and New York that are both owned by US-led consortiums.

If this takes off in 2006, as planned, it could be good news for the European Union, which may in part explain why Europe is so keen to forge a diplomatic route out of the current Iran-US impasse.

To the Bush administration, the Iranian government is loathsome but the other big kids on the block the EU, Russia and China do not share this view.

Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has entreated America to back the EU's Iran policy.
Russia may sign a contract with Iran at the end of February for the supply of atomic fuel with spent rods being returned to Russia for safe storage. This move would be anathema to the White House.

China's newly strengthened alliance with Iran could provide a further stumbling block to the more hawkish members of the US administration. This, especially since China's burgeoning economy is becoming increasingly dependent on Iranian oil and gas.

Keeping China firmly in its place by controlling the oil-rich Gulf is thought to be another reason the United States has staked its claim in the region so markedly.

Thus, even if America managed to haul Iran before the United Nations Security Council as it did with Iraq in 2002, any consequent proposed US military action might end up being vetoed before it got off the ground.
So it’s all about the euros and petrodollars, eh? And even if iWaq’s oil was in fact privatized, what’s to stop the continuing slide of the dollar, if Iran and the other major producers tie themselves to the euro? How in the hell could private companies, especially American, secure themselves in that environment? Not even the specter of peak oil could make that palatable without raising the specter of more wars, perhaps even global ones. (And Heard also speculates that Iran already has nukes—can we tie that to Rumsfeld’s wish to resurrect “tactical” nukes, and the missile defense shield?)

I swear, none of this makes any sense. Not even the lies make any sense. There has to be more to this. Maybe someone smarter than me can figger it out. Me, I'm going way out in the mountains tomorrow, without anything to connect me to the rest of the world, and stay for a day or two at least. What with the unholy trinity of Gonzales, Chertoff and Negroponte handling justice, I think it's best to clear my head. The whole Heard thing’s at
Oil and the American policy in the Middle East if anyone wants to tie it together...

corrente SBL - New Location
~ Since April 2010 ~

~ Since 2003 ~

The Washington Chestnut
~ current ~

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


copyright 2003-2010

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?