The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

[nmm]

i thought this article was interesting because it answered, not only why America loves Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (even though they finance Wahhabism), but also i found the author's theories interesting. your opinions?

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

January 15, 2006

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.

Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

Coup d'

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Are these the same people behind 9/11?

[RedScare]

Great article. We love to think all of this is so simple...good vs. evil, as the president loves to say. But, as we are often reminded, but seldom listen, follow the money, and you will usually find your answer. I also noticed that nowhere in that article was terrorism, or even Islam mentioned. The Clash of Cultures is a shell game, used to divert attention from the real issues, for, as we know, if religion is invoked, common sense goes out the window.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Great article. We love to think all of this is so simple...good vs. evil, as the president loves to say. But, as we are often reminded, but seldom listen, follow the money, and you will usually find your answer. I also noticed that nowhere in that article was terrorism, or even Islam mentioned. The Clash of Cultures is a shell game, used to divert attention from the real issues, for, as we know, if religion is invoked, common sense goes out the window.

Really?

[DJ V Lawrence]

It all doesn't make a bit of sense, this Iran Nuclear talk. Why are we so sure they would attack us will a nuclear weapon if they had one in the first place? If we were on good relations, why would they even need or want one? And if they attacked the U.S., what would be in it for them?

It almost sounds like if we and Iran went to war at this point, it'd be because we provoked it.

[RedScare]

Really?

Yes, really.

[TheNiche]

Jeez. I really don't have time to break everything down, but granting that this is an abstract and that further rationale may be contained in the full paper, my general criticisms are briefly stated as follows:

1) The explanation of the history of American currency is pretty solid, with a few small understatements and overstatements. In general, the author seems to like using a lot of hyperbole in his language.

2) March 2006 has come and gone without a major destabilization of U.S. currency. Why?

3) Interesting theories, but he's really going out on a very long limb for a few of these.

4) Gold probably isn't coming back as the basis of the U.S. dollar any time soon.

[nmm]

It all doesn't make a bit of sense, this Iran Nuclear talk. Why are we so sure they would attack us will a nuclear weapon if they had one in the first place? If we were on good relations, why would they even need or want one? And if they attacked the U.S., what would be in it for them?

It almost sounds like if we and Iran went to war at this point, it'd be because we provoked it.

I think they are worried that Iran - being an "unstable nation" - is highly dangerous with a nuclear weapon. Of course, North Korea claimed (pre-Iraq War if my memory serves me right) that they had the ability of launching weapons onto the NW United States Coast (Portland, Seattle, etc).

I highly doubt Bush is going to go to war with Iran, especially with such a low approval rating and an unpopular war abroad. Not to mention the US Embassy in Afghanistan was bombed just today (4/19/06).

Iran is not as *unstable* as we may think. Afterall, its the remains of the Persian Empire.

Iran is no Iraq, as far as i know. While Saddam was despised by majority of his country, i dont know if the Ayotallah's are hated as much by their people. At worst, they have a disapproval rating matching Bush's.

If you attack, even those who dislike the bureacracy will rally around their leaders. This "rallying effect" will give already strained US forces a tough time, no doubt. Of course, you can always nuke the hell out of them, as was first proposed, but do you really want to? Especially since Americans are looked negatively upon all over the world, from South America to Oceania.

Then there is Russia-China to worry about, who are getting an abundant flow of energy from Iran - I hear Iran even allowed China to come in and drill oil themselves in certain parts of the country. Do you really wanna piss off your ex-archnemesis and the largest army in the world?

Iran played its cards right. I doubt though, a "developing" country like Iran would even think about trying to nuke the United States, halfway across the planet.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I think they are worried that Iran - being an "unstable nation" - is highly dangerous with a nuclear weapon. Of course, North Korea claimed (pre-Iraq War if my memory serves me right) that they had the ability of launching weapons onto the NW United States Coast (Portland, Seattle, etc).

I highly doubt Bush is going to go to war with Iran, especially with such a low approval rating and an unpopular war abroad. Not to mention the US Embassy in Afghanistan was bombed just today (4/19/06).

Iran is not as *unstable* as we may think. Afterall, its the remains of the Persian Empire.

Iran is no Iraq, as far as i know. While Saddam was despised by majority of his country, i dont know if the Ayotallah's are hated as much by their people. At worst, they have a disapproval rating matching Bush's.

If you attack, even those who dislike the bureacracy will rally around their leaders. This "rallying effect" will give already strained US forces a tough time, no doubt. Of course, you can always nuke the hell out of them, as was first proposed, but do you really want to? Especially since Americans are looked negatively upon all over the world, from South America to Oceania.

Then there is Russia-China to worry about, who are getting an abundant flow of energy from Iran - I hear Iran even allowed China to come in and drill oil themselves in certain parts of the country. Do you really wanna piss off your ex-archnemesis and the largest army in the world?

Iran played its cards right. I doubt though, a "developing" country like Iran would even think about trying to nuke the United States, halfway across the planet.

Iran is not a problem. The US military can handle them and have them str8 in under 30 minutes. The problem is....does our president have the will to take it to the next level. A betting man would rightfully bet, yes.

[nmm]

I dont understand how you can say "Iran is not a problem". Do you want another Iraq?

Mind you, Iran is not rocked by sectarian violence, nor are they ethnically split like Iraq.

[RedScare]

Iran is not a problem. The US military can handle them and have them str8 in under 30 minutes. The problem is....does our president have the will to take it to the next level. A betting man would rightfully bet, yes.

Yes, we have such a good track record of straightening countries in under 30 minutes recently.

[nmainguy]

Iran is not a problem. The US military can handle them and have them str8 in under 30 minutes. The problem is....does our president have the will to take it to the next level. A betting man would rightfully bet, yes.

Are you saying the colossally incompetent and inept Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gang of thugs that can't shoot straight would be able to take down Iran in 30 minutes when they can't even prosecute an unneccesary war in Iraq, manage hurricane recovery while all the time bankrupting the economy?

Yeah, I'll bet you a million bucks. PM me so I can tell you where to send the check.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Iran is not a problem. The US military can handle them and have them str8 in under 30 minutes. The problem is....does our president have the will to take it to the next level. A betting man would rightfully bet, yes.

Iran would not be another Iraq. and Bush would be insane if he pushed on for war in these current conditions. It'd only make the threat of terror on American soil much higher, and I don't see why Iran's oil is worth it. Besides, the Iraq mission is far from complete, and Iran's Army is MUCH stronger and organized than that of Iraq. A lot of Iraqi soilders were surrendering at the beginning of the war for various reasons, but mainly because they didn't feel like fighting for Sadaam. I'm not so sure that you wouldn't see that this time. Too many soilders from both sides would die for absolutely no reason, and America wouldn't have that much to gain after we won.

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon, this statement was the most reckless comment I've ever read on haif2. I've had well over a hundred friends, co-workers, and former battle buddies of mine go to Iraq, and have been fortunate or unfortunate to lose one thus far (SGT. Corral from Kentucky). Iraq and Afghanistan were piece-of-cake wars for America compared to many others. Ask a veteran of WWII or the Vietnam War if someone they knew died in war, and they'd probably tell you the names of more than one. Please, whatever you do, don't make the mistake of assuming that every war we fight will be just like the last two. Iran is a more developed and unified nation than Iraq. And three wars against three different nations in the same area within five years with the same administration calling for them sounds unreal.

Lastly, ANY nation is dangerous with a nuclear weapon. I'd be more worried about China having one than anyone else.

[Lowbrow]

China has had nukes since '64.

[midtown 4.2]

DJ, look into statements that Ahmadinejad made about Israel. Look into his statements about the return of the 12th Imam. The Iranian president believes that it is his duty to hasten the return to earth of the Imam . . . but the process will only start with Armageddon. THAT is why a nuclear Iran is so dangerous.

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/ixworld.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al_Mahdi

[HeightsGuy]

Uh, the guy doesn't have his history right in the first 6 paragraphs, so I stopped reading. (hint - Nixon, Dollar, Gold, put the three words together) (hint #2, Roosevelt - 1932, wasn't he a little more worried about other things that year, like, say, winning an election??)

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Uh, the guy doesn't have his history right in the first 6 paragraphs, so I stopped reading. (hint - Nixon, Dollar, Gold, put the three words together) (hint #2, Roosevelt - 1932, wasn't he a little more worried about other things that year, like, say, winning an election??)

Ah, you were paying attention :):)

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Iran would not be another Iraq. and Bush would be insane if he pushed on for war in these current conditions. It'd only make the threat of terror on American soil much higher, and I don't see why Iran's oil is worth it. Besides, the Iraq mission is far from complete, and Iran's Army is MUCH stronger and organized than that of Iraq. A lot of Iraqi soilders were surrendering at the beginning of the war for various reasons, but mainly because they didn't feel like fighting for Sadaam. I'm not so sure that you wouldn't see that this time. Too many soilders from both sides would die for absolutely no reason, and America wouldn't have that much to gain after we won.

Houston1stWordOnTheMoon, this statement was the most reckless comment I've ever read on haif2. I've had well over a hundred friends, co-workers, and former battle buddies of mine go to Iraq, and have been fortunate or unfortunate to lose one thus far (SGT. Corral from Kentucky). Iraq and Afghanistan were piece-of-cake wars for America compared to many others. Ask a veteran of WWII or the Vietnam War if someone they knew died in war, and they'd probably tell you the names of more than one. Please, whatever you do, don't make the mistake of assuming that every war we fight will be just like the last two. Iran is a more developed and unified nation than Iraq. And three wars against three different nations in the same area within five years with the same administration calling for them sounds unreal.

Lastly, ANY nation is dangerous with a nuclear weapon. I'd be more worried about China having one than anyone else.

We have never fought and won a war in under 30min. We can do so, this i know for a fact. I stand by what i said. As far as military service goes, i have it and come from a long line of men in the family with military service reaching as far back as the civil war........ Afghanistan and Iraq were very successful military campaigns. I disagree with the way Afghanistan was fought, but im pleased with the end result As far as Iran being a unified nation, so therefore we shouldnt even think of attacking.....take a look at history.....the USSR outnumbered us 10 to 1, and they were highly unified. We had an ace in the hole that would turn that unity into spirit........ If the president sends the military to war, it should be for one purpose and one purpose only..... TO WIN. With that in mind, he should be willing to take it to any level to win. Iran can be handled in under 30 min. If an Iran war is planned to be fought like Iraq, then i would be worried. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the knowlege of Russia which is dangerous. The glorious military campaigns seen on the TV in the forms of Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not happen with Iran. It would be prudent to assume Russia has coached them on how to defeat the US in an Iraq/Afghan style military war. That said, things should be planned on the next level...........

On an even more serious note, DJ V, thanks for volunteering to keep us safe. I appreciate it to NO END!!!!! Thank you

[nmm]

Uh, the guy doesn't have his history right in the first 6 paragraphs, so I stopped reading. (hint - Nixon, Dollar, Gold, put the three words together) (hint #2, Roosevelt - 1932, wasn't he a little more worried about other things that year, like, say, winning an election??)

I wouldnt discredit "the guy" just like so. After all, "the guy" is an economics professor, isnt he?

[west20th]

I wouldnt discredit "the guy" just like so. After all, "the guy" is an economics professor, isnt he?

Woopty-Doo. So was Ken Lay.

[HeightsGuy]

I wouldnt discredit "the guy" just like so. After all, "the guy" is an economics professor, isnt he?

I can't help it, he says specifically in the 4th paragraph that FDR decoupled the dollar from gold in 1932. I'm no professor, but I do remember from history class that Roosevelt was elected pres in 1932 and inagurated in 1933. How could he have decoupled the dollar from gold as the governor of NY?

Also, he mentions that FDR decoupled gold (in 1932, remember) when it was convenient to the argument, but doesn't mention that it was really Nixon that nailed that coffin shut in 1968. Again, this is an economics professor we're talking about, eh?

[nmainguy]

I can't help it, he says specifically in the 4th paragraph that FDR decoupled the dollar from gold in 1932. I'm no professor, but I do remember from history class that Roosevelt was elected pres in 1932 and inagurated in 1933. How could he have decoupled the dollar from gold as the governor of NY?

Also, he mentions that FDR decoupled gold (in 1932, remember) when it was convenient to the argument, but doesn't mention that it was really Nixon that nailed that coffin shut in 1968. Again, this is an economics professor we're talking about, eh?

(OPPS! Nixon was a private citizen in 68. He was inaugurated in 69 )

But I get your jest-and agree with your over-all assesment.

BTW: Was Lay actually an economics proffessor or just another 2-bit shyster? Or both?

[west20th]

BTW: Was Lay actually an economics proffessor or just another 2-bit shyster? Or both?

I know he has a PHD in economics and am pretty sure he was a prof before Enron.

[nmm]

I thought Ken Lay was the small-town farm boy Businessman and Jeff Skilling was the PhD in Economics.

[RedScare]

I thought Ken Lay was the small-town farm boy Businessman and Jeff Skilling was the PhD in Economics.

Ken Lay was a poor farm boy, and son of a Baptist preacher...an upbringing common to criminal CEOs and serial killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Lay

Jeff Skilling, on the other hand, is from Pittsburgh. He came to Enron after being an energy consultant. At one time, he was a program director for a public access cable channel in Aurora, Illinois. It is unknown whether he ever met Tia Carrere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Skilling

[DJ V Lawrence]

China has had nukes since '64.

That's the reason why I used China as an example. THAT would probably be a country I'd be nervous of making hostile.

We have never fought and won a war in under 30min. We can do so, this i know for a fact. I stand by what i said. As far as military service goes, i have it and come from a long line of men in the family with military service reaching as far back as the civil war........ Afghanistan and Iraq were very successful military campaigns. I disagree with the way Afghanistan was fought, but im pleased with the end result As far as Iran being a unified nation, so therefore we shouldnt even think of attacking.....take a look at history.....the USSR outnumbered us 10 to 1, and they were highly unified. We had an ace in the hole that would turn that unity into spirit........ If the president sends the military to war, it should be for one purpose and one purpose only..... TO WIN. With that in mind, he should be willing to take it to any level to win. Iran can be handled in under 30 min. If an Iran war is planned to be fought like Iraq, then i would be worried. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the knowlege of Russia which is dangerous. The glorious military campaigns seen on the TV in the forms of Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not happen with Iran. It would be prudent to assume Russia has coached them on how to defeat the US in an Iraq/Afghan style military war. That said, things should be planned on the next level...........

On an even more serious note, DJ V, thanks for volunteering to keep us safe. I appreciate it to NO END!!!!! Thank you

First Off, thank you for the appreciation. I wanna send a thank-you to all HAIF

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Are you still in Korea? Did you know there were plans in place to prevent what we see today in the form of N. Korea? Think 30 minutes........... this is how i know it can be done in Iran:) :) :)

Our new leader at the time of sched. execution decided it was not a good idea and offered money instead for N Korea to stop nuclear ambitions.......Instead of stopping, they took our money and aide and took the nuke program underground.....a scenario that was voted as most likely to happen if the 30 min. option wasnt used......

If we dont do something to stop that menace, Israel will be forced to do it....and Lord knows where there will take the globe........

I wish i could tell you more, but being a former military man, you have to be aware of that darn 85yr rule......

[nmainguy]

How would a 30 minute war work? I'm curious as I have never heard of a 30 minute war ever throughout history.

Could you provide specifics?

I'm serious. How would a war that destroys Iran work in 30 minutes? Are you counting the aftermath or are you only factoring in the initial genocide? I assume you are counting on total victory instead of our failure in Afghanistan [the Taliban has now regained their foothold] and Iraq where civil war has just been born.

A 30 minute war. Fascinating-especially waged by the feckless Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld regime.

[nmm]

Houston1stwordonthemoon i think your making it too simple.

What about an international protest? 3 wars in 5 years? people already hate americans all over the world, do you really want to incite them even more?

and exactly what specific threat is iran to the USA?

moreoever, iran is backed by Russia and China - you want to piss them off too? China is what holds the American economy together - unless you prefer paying $10 for a lettuce head and $12.50 for a Mcdonald's Meal.

And think of the price of gas and energy all over the world if Iran is attacked. You already have problems in Venezuela and Nigeria, you want to aggravate the situation even more?

Moreover, inciting the Muslim/Arab World even more. Do you want an economic boycott in North Africa, Middle East and SouthEast and/or Central Asia? They already have a list of grievances spanning 200 years, you wanna add to the list?

[midtown 4.2]

and exactly what specific threat is iran to the USA?

nmm, Iran is not just a threat to the USA, but to the entire world.

"Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

By Anton La Guardia

(Filed: 14/01/2006)

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?" . . .The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about