Predictions, Bis.

Back in 2002 I have posted in the files section of the Bewleyupdates an article entitled « predictions, futurology and problems of consensus…”. The article in question was a newer version of an article entitled “The Islamic theory of social change” written by me in the annex of a PhD thesis deposited at the University of Duham, UK, back in the year 1986.

I have posted a second article into the files section of the Bewleyupdates, which although not written by me, I found relevant to the thesis underlining my initial article and a good analysis of ‘the real motives’ behind the war in Iraq.

The present article, in line with that initial thesis, which I consider to be no more than a hypothesis awaiting refutation by being exposed to rational/empirical tests, among which are the actually unfolding events. The testing is more than two decades old.

I consider that the hypothesis is not refuted as yet. To the contrary. A major turning point which was ‘predicted/ hypothesed ’ (Prediction and Prophesy pertain to two different realms), to unfold around the years 2016/2017, in line with a reading of a hadith about the Dajjal, ‘prophetised’ to rule for forty days…while days are like weeks, weeks like months and months like years (my reading was 44 years starting from 1973 when President Nixon decided to cut the Dollar from its criterion/guarantee, the gold standard, which decision followed by implementation, I consider ( areading again) to be no more than a claim to be a ‘creator’, which is one of the signs by which the Dajjal is to be recognised since his description has for the first time, been rendered public, so to speak, by the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him.

I am sure that Rowan Bekerley, who posted the following article to the Bewleyuptades won’t mind my uploading it to the files section.

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil
Bourse
By William R. Clark, Media Monitors, August 05 2005
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450

"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an
alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the
petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency.
Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous
U.S. economic dislocations."

[William R. Clark has received two Project Censored awards for
his research on oil currency conflict, and has recently
published a book, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future
of the Dollar (New Society Publishers, 2005). He is an
Information Security Analyst, and holds a Master of Business
Administration and Master of Science in Information and
Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins University. He
contributed this article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from
Maryland, USA.]

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack
Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on
the table."

- President George W. Bush, February 2005

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying
conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these
intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and
thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between
the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated
concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include
a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to
the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the
macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized
but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an
alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any
threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to
do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do
with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves
and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly
currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout
2004 information provided by former administration insiders
revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with
the intention of toppling Saddam. Candidly stated, 'Operation
Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-U.S.
government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before
the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to
petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum
towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency (
i.e. "petroeuro"). However, subsequent geopolitical events have
exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with
Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil
trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European
Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of
petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of
the world's governments – especially the E.U., Russia and
China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who
are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote
an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein
sealed his fate when he announced on September 2000 that Iraq
was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under
the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro
as Iraq's oil export currency.Indeed, my original pre-war
hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June
5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the
international markets were once again denominated in U.S.
dollars – not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the
transaction back to dollars — the international currency of oil
sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam
Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a
political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings
thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.

The Bush administration implemented this currency transition
despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil
sales. (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than
the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of
future oil proceeds to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure). Not
surprisingly, this detail has never been mentioned in the five
U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information
flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides
insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales
for 2003 the Iraq war.

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon
planning for operations against its suspected nuclear
facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt
action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear
ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers
underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's
upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange
for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock
exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de
Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than
Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports
in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran
government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX
and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades –
using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism. The
proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of
US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold
in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the
stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination,
Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar
supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

From the autumn of 2004 through August 2005, numerous leaks by
concerned Pentagon employees have revealed that the
neoconservatives in Washington are quietly – but actively –
planning for a possible attack against Iran. In September 2004
Newsweek reported:

"Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans
for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense
Department unit responsible for military planning for the two
troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration
official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as
merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains
for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish
bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived
campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more
hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries…'"

Administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in
Tehran – by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if
necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the
administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to
evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of
Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the
administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing
regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place
(extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear
ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S.
military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any
backers at the cabinet level.

Indeed, there are good reasons for U.S. military commanders to
be 'horrified' at the prospects of attacking Iran. In the
December 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows
reported that numerous high-level war-gaming sessions had
recently been completed by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force
colonel who has run war games at the National War College for
the past two decades. Col. Gardiner summarized the outcome of
these war games with this statement, "After all this effort, I
am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no
military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make
diplomacy work." Despite Col. Gardiner's warnings, yet another
story appeared in early 2005 that reiterated this
administration's intentions towards Iran. Investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker included interviews
with various high-level U.S. intelligence sources. Hersh wrote:

"In my interviews (with former high-level intelligence
officials), I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target
was Iran. Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about
targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' the former CIA intelligence
official told me. But the Bush administration officials say,
'We've got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did
it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No
loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there."

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article
in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip
Giraldi. His article, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,"
suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning
against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the
event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice
President Dick Cheney's office wants the Pentagon to be prepared
to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if
the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist
attack against the U.S.:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President
Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be
employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on
the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault
on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program
development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep
underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons,
hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response
is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air
Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled
at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being
set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared
to damage his career by posing any objections."

Why would the Vice President instruct the U.S. military to
prepare plans for what could likely be an unprovoked nuclear
attack against Iran? Setting aside the grave moral implications
for a moment, it is remarkable to note that during the same week
this "nuke Iran" article appeared, the Washington Post reported
that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of
Iran's nuclear program revealed that, "Iran is about a decade
away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon,
roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years." This
article carefully noted this assessment was a "consensus among
U.S. intelligence agencies, (and in) contrast with forceful
public statements by the White House." The question remains, Why
would the Vice President advocate a possible tactical nuclear
attack against Iran in the event of another major terrorist
attack against the U.S. – even if Tehran was innocent of
involvement?

Perhaps one of the answers relates to the same obfuscated
reasons why the U.S. launched an unprovoked invasion to topple
the Iraq government – macroeconomics and the desperate desire to
maintain U.S. economic supremacy. In essence, petrodollar
hegemony is eroding, which will ultimately force the U.S. to
significantly change its current tax, debt, trade, and energy
policies, all of which are severely unbalanced. World oil
production is reportedly "flat out," and yet the
neoconservatives are apparently willing to undertake huge
strategic and tactical risks in the Persian Gulf. Why? Quite
simply – their stated goal is U.S. global domination – at any
cost.

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles
concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the
lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil 'marker'
as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil
markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West
Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE
Dubai crude. However, since the summer of 2003 Iran has required
payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU
exports – although the oil pricing these trades was still
denominated in the dollar.

Therefore a potentially significant news story was reported in
June 2004 announcing Iran's intentions to create of an Iranian
oil bourse. This announcement portended competition would arise
between the Iranian oil bourse and London's International
Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX). Both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S.
consortium, and operated by an Atlanta-based corporation,
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse
are noteworthy. Considering that in mid-2003 Iran switched its
oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers to the euro, and thus
it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher
in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency.
This event would remove the main technical obstacle for a
broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From
a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system
is a logical development given that the European Union imports
more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U.
accounted for 45% of exports sold to the Middle East. (Following
the May 2004 enlargement, this percentage likely increased).

Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S.
corporate media conglomerates, these foreign news stories
suggest one of the Federal Reserve's nightmares may begin to
unfold in the spring of 2006, when it appears that international
buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60
dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for
45 - 50 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro
maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the
dollar – and assumes that some sort of US "intervention" is not
launched against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce
petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally
new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and
gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be able to
effortlessly expand credit via U.S. Treasury bills, and the
dollar's demand/liquidity value will fall.

It is unclear at the time of writing if this project will be
successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S.
interventions – thereby signaling the second phase of
petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. Regardless of the
potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the
emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not
entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of
oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining
oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What we are
witnessing is a battle for oil currency supremacy. If Iran's oil
bourse becomes a successful alternative for international oil
trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the
financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a
factor not overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article:

"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and
Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's
International Petroleum Exchange ... Some industry experts have
warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western
exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations,
which have a vested interest in market volatility."

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP,
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the
Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make
on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman.

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an
OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would
facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. He stated this would be
based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in
euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether
or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar,
and the EU's proposed expansion plans were successful. Notably,
both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro's
valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the
euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries.
Despite recent "no" votes by French and Dutch voters regarding a
common E.U. Constitution, from a macroeconomic perspective,
these domestic disagreements do no reduce the euro currency's
trajectory in the global financial markets – and from Russia and
OPEC's perspective – do not adversely impact momentum towards a
petroeuro. In the meantime, the U.K. remains uncomfortably
juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking
nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers
(Paris/Frankfurt).

The most recent news reports indicate the oil bourse will start
trading on March 20, 2006, coinciding with the Iranian New Year.
The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse – if
successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency
standard – essentially negates the previous two criteria as
described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a
petroeuro system for international oil trades. It should also be
noted that throughout 2003-2004 both Russia and China
significantly increased their central bank holdings of the euro,
which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the
anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve
Currency. China's announcement in July 2005 that is was
re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not nearly as important as its
decision to divorce itself form a U.S. dollar peg by moving
towards a "basket of currencies" – likely to include the yen,
euro, and dollar. Additionally, the Chinese re-valuation
immediately lowered their monthly imported "oil bill" by 2%,
given that oil trades are still priced in dollars, but it is
unclear how much longer this monopoly arrangement will last.

Furthermore, the geopolitical stakes for the Bush administration
were raised dramatically on October 28, 2004, when Iran and
China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement (valued between
$70 - $100 billion dollars.) It should also be noted that China
currently receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran. In the
aftermath of the Iraq invasion, the U.S.-administered Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) nullified previous oil lease
contracts from 1997-2002 that France, Russia, China and other
nations had established under the Saddam regime. The
nullification of these contracts worth a reported $1.1 trillion
created political tensions between the U.S and the European
Union, Russia and China. The Chinese government may fear the
same fate awaits their oil investments in Iran if the U.S. were
able to attack and topple the Tehran government. Despite U.S.
desires to enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks
of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a
serious crisis between Washington and Beijing.

It is increasingly clear that a confrontation and possible war
with Iran may transpire during the second Bush term. Clearly,
there are numerous tactical risks regarding neoconservative
strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust
military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe"
tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed
sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and
therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz – where all of
the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass. The immediate
question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to
intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 or 2006 in
a desperate effort to prevent the initiation of euro-denominated
international crude oil sales? Commentators in India are quite
correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is
likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters
much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention
potential effects on the U.S. economy.

If the U.S. intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will
not be able to improve the situation. There is a better way, as
the constructive engagement of Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
has shown. Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya,
because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been
entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the
sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation.
Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in
any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic
intervention, if at all.

A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an
alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the
petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency.
Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous
U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU
and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an
'Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup
such as operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power
of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence
agencies to facilitate 'interventions,' it would be perilous and
possibly ruinous for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the
dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International
Studies warned of the possible consequences of a preemptive
attack on Iran's nuclear facilities:

"An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various
adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the
world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian
illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities
by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's
international stature and reduce the threat of international
sanctions against Iran."

Synopsis:

It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in
a desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy.
Regardless of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that
down-played Iran's potential nuclear weapons program, it appears
increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter
of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an
intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD
campaign regarding Iraq. If recent stories are correct regarding
Cheney's plan to possibly use a another 9/11 terrorist attack as
the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial attack against
Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is prepared to
undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran's nuclear
ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the
Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil
trades.

However, as members of the U.N. Security Council, China, Russia,
and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto
any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of
force without solid proof of Iranian culpability in a major
terrorist attack. A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran
would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world
community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could
provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon
the dollar en masse. Indeed, such an event would create pressure
for OPEC or Russia to move towards a petroeuro system in an
effort to cripple the U.S. economy and its global military
presence. I refer to this in my book as the "rogue nation
hypothesis."

While central bankers throughout the world community would be
extremely reluctant to 'dump the dollar,' the reasons for any
such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their
perspective – the global community is dependent on the oil and
gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf. Hence,
industrialized nations would likely move in tandem on the
currency exchange markets in an effort to thwart the
neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of
dominating the world's largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any
such efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be
undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as
punishment towards the American people per se – but rather to
thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially
destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Barring a U.S. attack, it
appears imminent that Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse will
open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S.
strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a
dual-currency system for international oil trades.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most
to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of
every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed
debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under
the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom
in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison, Political
Observations, 1795