How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
The approaching war with Iran
How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
By Ed Haas
01/20/06 "ICH" -- -- If you get your news from the Big Five, the global media conglomeration of Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Bertelsmann AG, Viacom, and News Corporation, which when combined control approximately 90% of the world’s headlines, than there is little doubt that you have been adequately primed with stories regarding Iran’s nuclear power ambitions and the threat that such ambitions represent to the United States. Absent perspective though, these headlines amount to nothing more than fear-mongering hype intended to persuade Americans into supporting the Federal Reserve, U.S. Congress, and Bush Administration once again if they collectively decide that it’s necessary to launch yet another pre-emptive strike in the Middle East under flimsy, if not false pretenses.
The fact is that Iran wants nuclear power. It wants to join a growing list of countries that already enjoy the benefits of nuclear power. Which countries currently have nuclear power plants operating within their borders? The list might surprise you. Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. According to the Uranium Information Centre[1] there are a total of 441 operable reactors in these countries.
Countries that are exploring or actively seeking nuclear power capabilities include Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam. The countries that are known to have stockpiles of nuclear weapons are Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Pakistan, and India. Israel is considered a de facto nuclear power by most observers, although it has long maintained that it will neither confirm nor deny whether it has nuclear weapons. North Korea is suspected to have joined the list of nuclear powers in 2005. South Africa once had nuclear weapons but has since reportedly destroyed the weapons, but not the capacity to manufacture them again if necessary.
Given the fact that nuclear power plants are currently operating in 31 countries with 7 more countries in pursuit of atomic energy, is it possible that the United States of America is honestly threatened by Iran seeking nuclear power capabilities? And given the fact that there are currently approximately 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is it plausibly that Iran, even if it had 20 nuclear warheads, wouldn’t be pulverized if it ever attempted to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States or any of our allies? Nuclear or not, Iran will never be a nuclear threat to the United States. It is a mathematical improbability. According to Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, of these 31,000 nuclear warheads, about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice. The combined explosive yield of these weapons is approximately 5,000 megatons, which is about 200,000 times the explosive yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima.[2] None of these nukes are in Tehran’s control. With this perspective intact, is it possible that the United States of America is really threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions? It does not seem possible, yet the propaganda machine is churning out battle cries daily that do not match reality. That’s what propaganda is, words masquerading as news that defy and deny reality.
The truth be told, Iran’s current nuclear ambitions, whether for peaceful purposes or not, do not pose any greater threat to the United States then when Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1988. Prior to Pakistan becoming a nuclear power, Muslim countries in the Middle East were surrounded by non-Muslim nuclear powers. Therefore, beginning in 1970’s, Pakistan viewed the development of a nuclear bomb as its last resort and only defense against being invaded by India or the Soviet Union. There are many historical indications that Pakistan was most likely correct in its assessment regarding the need to become a nuclear power. In 1979, when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Pakistan feared becoming a future target of Soviet aggression. To make matters worse, in 1980, Pakistan was told that the United States would not commit forces to defend Pakistan if the Soviet Union invaded. This lack of support from the United States made any claimed alliance between Pakistan and the United States doubtful in the eyes of the Pakistani people, and only increased Pakistan’s urgent approach towards becoming a nuclear power.
Although relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved significantly since September 11, 2001, it is a matter of fact that Pakistan played a vital roll in helping Iran and North Korea advance their nuclear programs during the 1990’s. In other words, without Pakistan’s assistance, it is likely that the Iran nuclear hysteria would not be possible today. Regardless of past cooperation between Pakistan and the nuclear pursuits of Iran and North Korea, the rhetoric suggesting that a future nuclear-powered Iran presents a clear and present danger to the Middle East and the United States simply cannot be substantiated when measured against the number of countries that currently operate nuclear power plants and the staggering amount of nuclear warheads stockpiled around the world that are controlled by the United States and its allies.
The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States clearly demonstrated the positive power to be found in fearing a nuclear counterattack. If either the Soviet Union or the United States would not have been a nuclear power during the Cold War, it is reasonable to suggest that the country possessing nuclear warheads would have invaded the one that did not, thus making the Cold War, hot. The governments of India and Pakistan intensely distrust if not despise each other, but knowing that each side has nuclear weapons has restrained either side from launching all out invasions on the other ever since both became nuclear powers. In both the Soviet Union vs. United States and India vs. Pakistan nuclear showdowns, President Ronald Reagan’s tactical strategy, “Peace through superior firepower” proved flexible enough to withstand being minimized to “Peace through similar firepower”, and remain a fundamental truth.
It is worth noting that during the 1990’s, Pakistan considered Iran as its closest regional ally. However, times have changed this alliance. Iran is now a fundamental Shiite haven with a government to match. Pakistan on the other hand is sliding toward an ideological Sunni state. Shiites are outraged by Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States, with most viewing the Unites States / Pakistan relationship as an unholy alliance that amounts to nothing less than blasphemy. If tensions between Iran and Pakistan escalate as expected, then Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon will mirror Pakistan’s urgency to develop a nuclear weapon in the 70’s and 80’s to defend itself against a nuclear India.
Iran also knows what the world knows but Israel will not admit; that Israel is a nuclear power with an overwhelmingly decisive military advantage over Iran. Iran might spout words of hate towards Israel, but they do not dare launch missiles, because unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t fight wars for oil. It fights wars for survival, and will not hesitate destroying Iran’s oil reserves if it determines such military actions to be tactically advantageous.
The bottom line is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are well documented and have existed for more than two decades. Pakistan played a vital role in advancing the nuclear capabilities of both Iran and North Korea in the 1990’s. As Pakistan moves closer to the United States, and with 130,000 U.S troops in Iraq, Iran is being pushed into a weapon of last resort scenario similar to that of Pakistan when India became a nuclear power. In January 2006, the Big Five media conglomeration has fired up the propaganda presses and aggressively started churning out the Iran Nuclear Threat headlines at an alarming pace, even though there is really nothing new about Iran’s 20-year-old nuclear ambitions. When measured against the list of 31 countries that currently operate nuclear power plants, the 7 that are pursuing nuclear power, the 31,000 nuclear warheads already distributed around the world, the fact that Israel is a nuclear power, and the United States having 130,000 troops in neighboring Iraq while building permanent military installations faster than George Bush can say 9/11, nuclear or not, Iran is of no military consequence to the United States or Israel, and it will not be for generations to come, if ever.
If Iran’s desire to have access to nuclear power is old news, which it is, then why is it being splashed as breaking headlines across the world? Why now? What has happened thus far in 2006 that was not happening in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005? Did uranium enrichment equipment and facilities suddenly and surprisingly appear on the Iranian landscape? Is Iran’s announcement that it has restarted its uranium enrichment research; the Big Five called it breaking the seals on its uranium enrichment equipment, which sounds vaporously spooky, when all it really means is that Iran unlocked the doors of the facilities that house the uranium enrichment equipment and turned the lights on once again; is this action an actual threat to the security of the United States of America? No, it is not.
So what is it? What is Iran doing that has the Big Five, the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, U.S. Congress, and the Executive Branch Bushians urgently leading the misinformed American people down the road of “we found those weapons of mass destruction we were looking for in Iraq, in Iran”? If Iran’s nuclear ambitions don’t add up to the propaganda, which it does not, what does?
In a December 16, 2005 Associated Press article, President Bush said that Iran is a “real threat” to the United States and called on Tehran to “prove it does not seek nuclear weapons.” Sound familiar? Just a few years earlier, Bush challenged Iraq to prove it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Saddem Hussein said that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. But how do you prove you don’t have something? Vilified and scorned U.N. Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter repeatedly told the Big Five that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction programs prior to the Bushians launching its pre-emptive strike.
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
The truth is that Iran stands about as much chance of convincing President Bush that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as the nineteen men and women convicted in 1692 by the Massachusetts Puritans for practicing witchcraft did in convincing the Puritans that they were not witches. The Executive Branch Bushians know that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of no real threat to the United States, but believe that Americans will take the nuclear threat bait. Either way, the Executive Branch Bushians, along with the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the U.S. Congress, need this new lie to stick firmly in the minds of approximately half of the population of the United States so that it can go about the business of thwarting the real threat that Iran posed to the United States. And yes, Iran does pose a real threat to the United States, a clear and present danger far worst than anything the Big Five is reporting. Why the Big Five is not reporting on the real economical “nuclear bomb” that Iran already possesses serves as evidence to the intuitive American that this unspoken threat is absolutely real. In March 2006, Iran will break the seals on its Iran Oil Bourse.
If you are not familiar with the Iran Oil Bourse, you need to Google it promptly. Thankfully, many reporters, commentators, and scholars that operate in the 10% zone not controlled by the Big Five have wrote outstanding articles and analysis regarding the true implications of the Iran Oil Bourse. In fact, there seems to be a new article on the subject, released daily. On January 15, 2006, Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. wrote The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse. His analysis: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire. His qualifications: Petrov received his Ph.D. in economics from Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. In his article, Petov recommends reading two works by William Clark: The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq, and The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target.
Here are the key points made by Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. in his report: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
· The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire
· The weapon is the Iran Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006
· With the opening of the Iran Oil Bourse:
o Europeans will no longer have to buy and hold U.S. Dollars in order to secure payment for oil. They will be able to purchase oil with their own currencies, the euro.
o The Chinese and Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the Iran Oil Bourse because it will allow them to drastically reduce their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar.
o Russians have an inherent economic interest in adopting the euro because the bulk of its trade is with European countries
o The Arab-oil exporting countries also need to diversify against the rising mountains of U.S. debt notes – the depreciating dollar
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
What the Iran Oil Bourse means to the average American is that suddenly, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars will become unwanted around the world. In essence, the money supply will double or triple. When supply outweighs demand, prices go down – except when dealing with currency. When money supply exceeds demand, prices go up. Its called inflation – the hidden tax brought to the U.S. taxpayer courtesy of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel and our friends in the U.S. Congress. Imagine if every Americans income doubled in next week’s paycheck. Do you think prices for goods and services would decrease, remain the same, or increase? If you think they would decrease or remain the same, can I interest you in a hot stock I’m selling called Enron?
Another way to think about the U.S. dollar is in terms of a company stock. Speaking of Enron, when the truth about this company’s finances hit the street, what happened to the value of the stock? It plummeted. Why? In theory, the news of false financials didn’t directly cause the stock value to drop. It dropped because there were more sellers than buyers. From its highs of $90 per share, Enron quickly became worthless in the span of a few weeks. Everyone who held shares of Enron, simultaneously sold their stock, and there was nobody willing to buy the shares. The situation with the U.S. dollars is very similar. If enough people and countries stop holding U.S. dollars, the value of the dollar in your wallet will plummet. The greenback will go the way of the Continental. In 1775 the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of paper money to finance the American War for Independence. These notes, known as "Continentals," would be redeemable only after the colonies won their independence. Overprinted and distrusted by the public, they declined rapidly in value, giving rise to the popular expression "not worth a Continental."
So what are the real options that the United States of America has to protect its security and financial stability? Option A is to believe the Big Five propaganda machine financed by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel that prints our funny money, and take our chances with invading Iran to thwart the March 2006 launch of the Iran Oil Bourse. To some that might sound appealing, but such action will not change the fact that our federal government has been operating on a Federal Reserve credit card, which has no credit limit, for so long that We the People now have a $8 trillion dollar national debt. The Federal Reserve Banking Cartel loves this enormous debt because it represents interest payments from the U.S. taxpayer to its network of private corporations. The ability of the federal government to tax incomes, on behalf of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, before the wage earner ever receives his or her paycheck, makes hard-working men and women slaves to the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel. The U.S. Congress supports using the citizenry as collateral for its wayward spending, for without the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel accepting as collateral, the birth certificates of American citizens and the potential, future taxable wages that they represent, the federal government could no longer finance its 1174 federal agencies and the payroll associated with 4.3 federal employees.
Option B is to abolish the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 immediately, eliminate seventy-five percent of the 1174 federal agencies and the millions of federal mandates they represent, seize all gold held by the banking cartel, allow the cartel member’s financial institutions to collapse while forgiving all debt owed to the cartel, return the printing and coining of money to the U.S. Treasury, eliminate fractional and fiat money schemes, and return our currency to a commodity backed system such as gold and silver. Finally, there is need to amend the Constitution of the United States of America so as to abolish the 16th Amendment and add language that would prevent the federal government of the United States from deficit spending or operating with a national debt ever again.
There really are no other options, and March 2006 is fast approaching. This is not a doomsday scenario. It is fact. The fiat money scheme run by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel is about to collapse. Meanwhile the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the Big Five media conglomeration are so fearful of the court of public opinion in the United States, that they will not even utter the words, Iran Oil Bourse.
On a personal note: I have two sons, ages 18 and 15. I myself am a veteran who served ten years in the United States Marine Corps. Arguably, we are all hawks. There are wars worth fighting, and there remain causes worth dying for in defense of the United States of America. Sustaining the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is not one of them. Fighting against the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is.
It’s time for the We the People of these United States to spread the word and truth regarding the real threat Iran poses to the United States, and act boldly to fix our own government and money system so that we no longer are required to fight wars to maintain the stability of our own currency.
[1] Uranium Information Centre, Melbourne, Australia, World Nuclear Power Reactors 2004-06, January 4, 2006, http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm, [Accessed January 17, 2006]
Ed Haas is a freelance writer and author originally from Mt. Penn, Pennsylvania. He currently resides in beautiful Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. To learn more about Ed's work, please visit craftingprose.com. http://www.craftingprose.com
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
Oil behind the attacks on Iran
Behind the campaign of the United States to charge Iran over alleged preparations to make nuclear weapons, a charge that has already been rejected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a far greater Iranian "crime" in the eyes of the US leaders. But this "crime" will never be even whispered by Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld and the others involved in the preparation for a new Middle East war.
William Clark, in an article published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation notes: "In 2005-2006 the Tehran government has a developed plan to begin competing with the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) with respect to international oil trades — using a euro-denominated international trading mechanism". (It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by US corporations).
The oil and gas trade is the biggest market in the world and the establishment of an Iranian oil and gas trading centre "means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade.
"It is now obvious that the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone weapons of mass destruction program and certainly less to do with fighting international terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and, in doing so, maintaining the US dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market", writes William Clark.
"'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-US puppet in Iraq, establish multiple US military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. (Note: Saddam Hussein had converted Iraqi oil transactions to euros some time before the US launched its "preventive" war. Iraqi oil is once again denominated in US dollars, not euros).
William Clark continues: "Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of covert operation is inevitable under President Bush … Numerous news reports … have revealed that the neo-conservatives are quietly — but actively — planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.
"Since the spring of 2003 Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian exports although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar."
William Clark goes on: "The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from EU and Asian customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker — denominated in the euro currency.
Another worrying aspect for the US is that Saudi investors "may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable."
"It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second world reserve currency".
In speculating on what the US leadership might do in the situation William Clark writes: "Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could 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. The latter would require forced 'regime change' and the US occupation of Iran ... Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shows that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure.
"Unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. 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. In the case of a US attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz — where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass — could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more ... Why are the neoconservatives willing to take such risks?"
William Clark quotes a Monterey Institute of International Studies report: "Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counter-attack on Israel and US bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilise Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilise Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States with significant Shi'i populations and induce the Lebanese Hezbollah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel".
William Clark concludes: "Either way, US policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare".
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
I wonder why did you have to post it here. Why not just give a short outline and a link to a full text instead? And BTW, did you by any chance ask William Clark if it is OK to publish it here?
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
Tschhhhhh, it was supposed to be a secret
On the bright side, many who Israel told the lessons, do not remember anything as they are not longer with us...
I would be sorry about Irany people, but as guys say in bars: "if you gotta go, you gotta go" Hopefully it would not have to happen...
To paraphrase Lenin the Great. "A country is only worthy if it can protect it self"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzibuster!
Iran is playing with fire. Israel soon is gonna teach them a lesson they'll never forget.
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzibuster!
Iran is playing with fire. Israel soon is gonna teach them a lesson they'll never forget.
Israel better not interfere, this is an international matter Israel intervention would most likely cause world war III and Israel would at the end be one of the loosers as the rest of the world would probably turn against them.
Thankfully this matter has been greatly exagerated by the us administration and the media which thrive on this kind of news .
I say let them produce nuclear energy and keep an eye on them, the UN inspectors did a great job in Iraq and they can do it in Iran as well
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
I do not think Israel will or should sit quet and wait for a slaughter. They, as alwais will do what is nessessery and sufficient to protect the country. And the rest of the world better not to turn against them, or it may be world war III And as the scriptures say there will be alwais a few jews left to start it over...
Quote:
Originally Posted by poldo
Israel better not interfere, this is an international matter Israel intervention would most likely cause world war III and Israel would at the end be one of the loosers as the rest of the world would probably turn against them.
Re: How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
That is a beautiful article , I can argue with some data but basically it's allright
without counting that for Iran to be able to actually produce a nuclear weapon would take many many years .. it's not as simple as the media and GW would like us to believe
How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?
Hybrid Mode
