I had written about it a number of times earlier, e.g.,
But there is reason to come back to it once again, since this is March, and three important - and interconnected - events are going to unfold this month.
1. On March 6th, IAEA will again meet to decide "what to do with Iran?". Since, it is obvious that they will refer Iran issue to UN Security Council, there is a need to understand the farce around the "concern of the international community" about the nuclear Iran.
2. On March 20th, Iran is planning to open its oil bourse, which will compete the two existing oil bourses - New York's NYMEX and London's International Petroleum Exchange.
3. From 23rd March, the Federal Reserve will stop publishing its M3 monetary aggregates - which gives the figures about dollars circulating in global market.
Perhaps to understand this linkage, one must look at a significant (but under-reported) event that occured on the floor of US House of Representatives, a few days back. For the first time, someone from the mainstream political domain (i.e., from the "Free West", "International Community", "Civilized World", etc.) clearly articulated what was otherwise often discussed in the alternative media - namely, there is a tacit connection between the growing US debt (not just deficit), threat to the the dollar supremacy, and the increasingly invasive US foreign policy... And that the Dollar Hegemony is nearing an end (or at least, under a killing threat)
It was the first time, an American politician, openly brought the issue of the threat to the "Dollar Hegemony" from the "Iranian Oil Bourse" (though, once again, this speech given by the Texan senator, Hon. Ron Paul was conveniently ignored by the MSM).
You can read the whole text at The End of Dollar Hegemony. Here are some key excerpts about why US will find justifications to attack Iran (directly, or maybe through Israel):
"...In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein - though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us.... It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros... Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.
In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA....It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez... The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.
Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the "axis of evil", has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars."
But if this is true, then what about the "Nuclear Ambitions" of Iran?
This "threat to the global peace" that is being highlighted as much by the politicians and MSM these days, as were the hidden WMDs that led upto US invasion of Iraq. In fact, the parallels between the build-up propaganda to Iraq invasion, and the current drumbeat about the "Iranian Nuclear Ambitions" are remarkable.
But coming back to Iran's nuclear capabilities, some facts:
1. According to the the US National Intelligence Estimates report (which was ordered by the US National Intelligence Council), Iran is at least a decade away from developing nuclear weapon. It is also interesting to note that unlike in case of Iraq - since it turned out to be rotten last time - this time the Bush administration has not been attributing the "Iran threat" to its "intelligence" (yes... pun is also intended:)
Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
2. According to an IAEA Update document, dated January 31, 2006: "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency, and to act as if the Additional Protocol is in force, including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."
This update from the IAEA Dy. Director General was shared to all just a week before 30/37 IAEA member nations "ratified" the US government propaganda - about Iran's "non-compliance of its obligations", "clandestine nuclear weapons program", etc. - as a fact.
In fact, even the earlier reports from IAEA Director General also communicate the same message: "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program" (Nov 2003, Implementation of NPT Safeguard Agreement in Islamic Republic of Iran)
"all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities" (Nov 2004, Implementation of NPT Safeguard Agreement in Islamic Republic of Iran)
Developments in the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Agency Verification of Iran’s Suspension of Enrichment-related and Reprocessing Activities (Update Brief by Dy Director General, IAEA)
3. From whatever one can understand about the technology for producing nuclear weapons (not my area of competence at all), one needs thousands of high-grade uranium centrefuges, that can spin at a speed of 800-1200 revolutions/second witout breaking down, to enrich weapon-grade uranium; Iran has just about 160 or so, and those too crude ones. Iran also does not produce uranium hexafluoride gas of high quality which is required to run its crude centrifuges.
Iran 'years from nuclear bomb'
Nuclear Poker Over Iran
But Why Would An Oil-Rich Nation (in fact, one with second largest reserves) Invest In Developing Nuclear Energy - Unless It Wants To Make Nuclear Weapons?
Plausible as this argument looks, like most such reasons that are made to ultimately justify a war, it hides more than it says.... Facts, after all, should never stand in the way of empire-building.
An article written by Prof Mohammad Sahimi (Prof & Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles) in 2003 lists out some useful facts to understand Iran's energy sector and needs (and which rarely find their way in MSM, politician's speeches, or public discourse):
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part II: Are Nuclear Reactors Necessary?
It is in this context that in 2003, one of the IAEA reports noted:
"According to all the surveys performed in power sector of Iran, nuclear option is the most competitive to fossil alternatives if the existing low domestic fuel prices are gradually increased to its opportunity costs at the level of international prices IAEA Report on Energy & Economics in Iran."
If So, Why Would We Have Another War - This Time, Waged on Iran - In The Coming Months/Weeks?
Iran, obvioulsy, is not a military threat to any nation. But it sure is an economic threat to US.
then, US govt. has no other alternative but to invade/attack it, if it has to save its economy.