PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A crisis in 3 easy steps... [Iran]
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:08 am    Post subject: A crisis in 3 easy steps... [Iran] Reply with quote

How about this for a possible sequence of events:

1) A few "terror" attacks in the US:

http://cbs4boston.com/news/topstories_story_223230933.html
Quote:

The bulletin warned police that terrorists could use fuel tankers in assaults on the three cities between now and mid-September, according to a report by KCBS-TV in Los Angeles.


2) US blame Iran and attack them:

http://www.friendsofliberty.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2566
Philip Girald wrote:

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.


3) Market fear alone spikes prices; loss of Iran's 2mbd output generates real shortages:

http://www.slb.com/news/story.cfm?storyid=629247
IEA wrote:

The quantity of a disruption could be less important but could create severe damage.


Not only with that give you a whopping crisis on multiple levels but it would HIDE any emerging facts about Peak Oil behind other events.

For those skeptical of a US attack (hold on snow hope hold on!), try substituting the above step-2 for this alternate:

2) Iran is referd to the UN security council vergarding nuclear fuel processing which votes for sanctions, Iran responds by withdrawing all oil supply to the open market (China still get theirs):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4140258.stm
Quote:

It is thought the resolution does not yet call for Iran's actions to be referred to the UN Security Council.

Mr Nasseri said: "I think that would be a grave miscalculation by the US and particularly by Europe to move towards the path of confrontation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GD



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1099
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

by William Clark

Quote:
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.

...

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 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.

...


E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Published on 3 Aug 2005 by Media Monitors Network. Archived on 9 Aug 2005.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

by William Clark
RELATED NEWS:

USAF fuel costs blowout cuts weapons research funding...

The End of The Oil Standard...

The Second Great Depression : Causes & Responses...

Oil, Jihad and Destiny: Will declining oil production plunge our planet into a Depression?...

Peak Oil - Peak Economics...

?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 Hussein.[1][2]

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?).[3] 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 in 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.[4]

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 [5]



The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi?s export oil sales.[6] (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.[7]

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.[8]



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.[9] 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.[10]



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.


...

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.?[12]

...

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 its debt-financing via issuance of U.S. Treasury bills, and the dollar?s international demand/liquidity value will fall.

...

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. [17] [18]

...

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.) [20] 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.

...

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-graded 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 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.

...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4101
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My God, I find this all rather scary, especially condering Bush's remarks today. The geopolitical side of things seem to be building to a real head. I am concerned that we will not see this year out without major world events. Crying or Very sad
_________________
Real money is gold and silver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EmptyBee



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 336
Location: Montgomeryshire, Wales

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's hope Bush is just sabre rattling. Clearly they'd need more than Iranian intransigence to justify military action. I think the whole neocon project is getting a little desperate.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

I'm not sure how much credence I give these reports of the US preparing contigency plans to nuke Iran, but as Bush has said before:

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

From the neocon PNAC site (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm):

"None of this means that the U.S. should be planning an attack tomorrow. There are numerous practical problems we would confront in carrying out that decision, even if that were in theory the right one to make. But it does mean that we have no reason to relax, nor can we postpone difficult decisions indefinitely."

I was beginning to think that the neocons were losing ground since the departure of Wolfowitz to the World Bank and the insurgency in Iraq. I still think there's evidence of an internal battle between the neocon hawks (Rummy, Cheney) and the more diplomatically inclined state department. Bush is just the mouthpiece in all this, which I think is why he seems to be giving such mixed signals and using so much doubletalk over Iran.

Attacking Iran would be insane. But then, the neocons are insane; they didn't call them 'the crazies' for nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EmptyBee



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 336
Location: Montgomeryshire, Wales

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This just published in the online Tehran Times. I somehow doubt this got published without official sanction:

Oil embargo best response to nuclear boycott

"The U.S. and other Western countries are making use of the natural resources of various countries, including the fossil fuel resources of the Middle East, to power their military and civilian industries.

The continuation of the unequal relationship between Third World countries, particularly Muslim countries, and the U.S. and other Western countries, which have adopted an unfair attitude, will never benefit the countries of the global South.

Therefore, the oil-rich countries, including Iran, which possess the most significant pressure lever, should wisely use this tool to punish the Western neocolonialist countries.

Oil is the lifeline of the West, and most of the West?s military industries are dependent on it. Therefore, it is the most potent economic weapon for settling scores with neocolonialist countries."


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/14/2005&Cat=14&Num=001

This is just an opinion piece mind you...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RogerCO



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Cornwall, UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm...if I was working inside the US administration in the context of the article posted above by GD, (taking onboard the objectives of maintaining dollar supremacy and preventing/making it difficult for China to get their mitts on Iranian oil) I would be thinking in terms of needing to provide the trigger Cheney requires (maybe not for nuclear, but certainly for intervention in Iran) - the trouble is I would find my military so stretched in Iraq, and public support so unlikely for another land conflict that the 'arms length' nature of the nuclear option would look pretty attractive.
Now to enable the administration to sell it to the public I would need to provide some pretty concrete justification.
I think I would be suggesting a covert operation to make it appear that the homeland had been attacked by a dirty nuclear terrorist weapon - I could then find 'scientific' evidence to prove that the 'terrorists' had sourced their nuclear material from the Iranian program, making the termination of that program and the regime that promoted it a viable policy objective to sell to the US public. It would also have the benefit of not being a 'first strike'.
Thus I could get the US public to back Bush in nuking the Iranian facilities and bringing down their goverment to be replaced with a dollar friendly US puppet regieme.
SO my conclusion is to expect a nuclear 'terrorist' attack on an american city sometime in the next five months. Likely targets - well NY and DC have already been hit, I wouldn't want to hit the South cos they are already onboard with the neocon project, no-one really cares about the rust belt and Chicago; I think I would probably want to hit San Fransisco - its full of queers and liberals anyway, and it is a seaport so would be easy to hit with a ship (or what appeared to be a ship bomb).
When - possibly between labour day (Sept) and Thanksgiving (Nov) allowing a rapid (nuclear) response this side of Christmas and the prevention of the Iranian oil bourse starting up next spring.
_________________
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had not read that Terhan Times article, it adds another dimension.

RogerCO's points about an already-stretched US military and about public support are very pertinent.

We all saw what 911 enabled; leaving debate about that event aside, any scenario such as Roger outlines would work to get the public on board in a big way and tolerant of all sorts of actions. It would also (imv) make a full draft possible, thus offsetting the overstretch issues currently occuring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also related is this http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1779772005

Quote:

A bulletin sent out last week by the US Department of Homeland Security said that al-Qaeda terrorists planned to drive hijacked fuel tankers into petrol stations to cause massive causalities.

The warning suggested the attacks could happen in London and American cities in the next few weeks.

It went on to say that such attacks could be timed to create catastrophic damage around the fourth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington DC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

God bless the times they actully reproduce the alert document, you can read it yourself:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2087-1733874_1,00.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
revdode



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Hungary

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: A crisis in 3 easy steps... Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
How about this for a possible sequence of events:

2) US blame Iran and attack them:
...
2) Iran is referd to the UN security council vergarding nuclear fuel processing which votes for sanctions, Iran responds by withdrawing all oil supply to the open market (China still get theirs):


One problem with the first version of event two, I don't think that the US have the capability to follow up any attack on Iraq with ground forces. They could nuke them (doubtful) or shock and awe them with conventional weapons although that has proved pretty ineffective in the past.
I'm pretty confident that the second version is on the money I'll leave predicting hat happens after that to someone who has a clue how to see through the ensuing s**t storm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:04 pm    Post subject: Re: A crisis in 3 easy steps... Reply with quote

revdode wrote:

One problem with the first version of event two, I don't think that the US have the capability to follow up any attack on Iraq with ground forces.


I think that I would broadly agree with that, BUT I don't nesseccarily think this would stop them from trying.

Intersting how related issues seem to be popping up, this dated today:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A7D96B74-EFFB-416D-BDF4-BA4611BA86FF.htm
Quote:

"According to some information, the Americans intervened in northwestern Iran. This is not acceptable at all," Asefi told a news conference. "We will voice our objection in this regard soon."


Also see the first entry dated "August 10, 2005" on http://www.waynemadsenreport.com:
Quote:

The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups.

(I picked this link up from peakoil.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koba



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 31
Location: Raynes Park

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any attack on Iran, would require the US to reinstate the draft and the only way they could do that would be to have another terrorist attack on mainland America.

The reason why the US would have to reinstate the draft if they wanted to attack Iran, would be because:

1 - Iran is five times the size of Iraq!

2 - Population of 80 million plus!

3 - Just bombing Iran would cause the Iranians to blockade the Persian Gulf so no exports of oil can get through which would criple the US and the world in a matter of days.

4 - The Iranian army would simply march into Iraq and take control.

The only other options in to nuke them and then god help us if they do!
_________________
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but the conquest of it"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GD



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1099
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I highly recommend anyone interested in this to listne to the speech given at the Traprock peace center by Scott Ritter.
MP3
From thin link

A few points of note:

* Iran may only need to be "decapitated" by taking out Tehran alone.
* Iran is a huge country, but Tehran is located near the border with Azerbaijan.
* US troops are being stationed in Azerbaijan near the Iranian border.
* The US are already committing acts of war against Iran.

Evil or Very Mad Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GD



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1099
Location: Devon

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, in today's guardian:

How Bush would gain from war with Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
EmptyBee



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 336
Location: Montgomeryshire, Wales

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the political desire to go to war on Iran is as extant as ever; it's just a matter of public opposition. Propaganda alone is not going to win people over this time. There has to be another attack, preferably one using WMD of some kind.

I listened this morning to a discussion on nuclear weapons on BBC radio4*. One commentator (I think former NATO General Secretary Lord Robertson) suggested that while the chance of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons was 'very low' it was 'not zero'. If they were to acquire or make a bomb he thought the likely yield would be a 1-10 kiloton bomb. For comparison 'Little Boy' dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kilotons. 'Fat Man' (a plutonium bomb) that was dropped on Nagasaki was about 25 kilotons. 1 kiloton being the equivalent of 1000 tonnes of TNT in power.

While the 60th anniversary of the bombings is obviously bringing talk of nukes back to public consciousness I can't help but worry about the possibility that the next terror attack(s) that we're apparently expecting over the next month, could be nuclear in nature. Maybe on the anniversary of 9/11 as some papers are predicting. Hijacked fuel tankers is the favorite hypothetical scenario currently. Regardless, it would have to be spectacular in nature to get the public to endorse another war. Another 7/7 scale attack wouldn't suffice I feel.

If Iraq had gone more smoothly then I don't think that another 'catastrophic catalysing event' (to borrow the PNAC terminology) would be required. I can't help reason that as things stand currently that's the only thing that will permit another war. Does that mean the powers that be will contrive to have such an event occur? I sincerely hope not.

*repeated tonight at 9:30 on radio4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/prog_parse.cgi?FILENAME=20050815/20050815_0900_49700_36987_45
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group