Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

[baywax]

It appears that China was using its influence on the Security Council to further isolate Iran and soften up it's trade partner. This from the September 14, 2007 International Herald Tribune:



This deal has been over 3 years in the making and only now is being finalized.



China's true motive for signing on with the Security Council Resolutions is revealed!
China extracts further concessions from its now isolated trade partner, Iran.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/14/business/AS-FIN-China-Iran-Energy.php

Could all this posturing by Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions simply be the public side of a private trade negotiation with China aimed at inflating the current price of energy?

At least they're being up-front, transparent and fully disclosing details about their trade deals. I can't say the same about some other countries.

For instance, we have this big "humanitarian" mission in Afganistan while we are also hammering back the Taliban in mysterious fire fights throughout the country. What we're not being told is that our troops and Afgan civilians are dieing in an effort to protect gas and oil pipelines being constructed to traverse the Afgan provinces from Azerbajan to a port in Pakistan.

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

(disclaimer: This article or section contains information about a planned or expected pipeline. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the construction and/or completion of the pipeline approaches, and more information becomes available.)

 

[edward]

It appears that China was using its influence on the Security Council to further isolate Iran and soften up it's trade partner. This from the September 14, 2007 International Herald Tribune:



This deal has been over 3 years in the making and only now is being finalized.



China's true motive for signing on with the Security Council Resolutions is revealed!
China extracts further concessions from its now isolated trade partner, Iran.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/14/business/AS-FIN-China-Iran-Energy.php

Could all this posturing by Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions simply be the public side of a private trade negotiation with China aimed at inflating the current price of energy?

You may be on to something here. China's Helping the security council to isolate Iran from everyone but China was certainly beneficial to China's Iranian ventures.

 

[edward]

In the late 90's , Unocal was planning the trans Afghan pipeline with Haliburton to be the contractor.

Haliburton now has some competition in the Middle east.

IRAN AND CHINA SIGN AGREEMENT TO EXPLORE OIL IN THE CASPIAN SEA

By Taleh Ziyadov

Wednesday, February 1, 2006


On January 18, Iran's North Drilling Company (NDC) and the Hong Kong-registered China Oilfield Services Ltd. signed an oil-exploration agreement for management, repair, and maintenance of the Alborz semi-floating platform, currently being constructed by the Iranian Offshore Industries Company.

A three-year contract with an estimated cost of $33 million will enable Iran, with China's help, to move its exploration activities to the deep waters of the southern Caspian (MehrNews, January 20). Until now, Iran has been unable to explore fields that were deeper than 90 meters.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370729

I find it more than coincidence that the: "We must attack Iran" talk started at the same time China was negotiating some very big deals with the Iranians.

 

[chemisttree]

At least they're being up-front, transparent and fully disclosing details about their trade deals. I can't say the same about some other countries

Huh?

Did you read the article? I will re-display the pertinent part for you...

Speaking to reporters after meetings in Beijing, Mostafa Pour Mohammadi gave few details but indicated progress had been made. "We have many big projects on the table," Pour Mohammadi said.

Nobody is completely transparent (up-front, fully-disclosing) in any trade negotiation. Thats not a problem in my opinion.

 

[baywax]

Huh?

Did you read the article? I will re-display the pertinent part for you...



Nobody is completely transparent (up-front, fully-disclosing) in any trade negotiation. Thats not a problem in my opinion.

What I'm referring to is the propensity of some governments to "sell" an invasion on the grounds that it will stem terrorism and anti-humanitarianism when it is primarily a strategy to secure energy. We don't see China invading Iran for oil we see Iran and China in negotiations concerning the trade of oil for money. There are no "smoke'em'out" screens about the trade relationship between the two countries. Possibly an example to follow.

 

[chemisttree]

I find it more than coincidence that the: "We must attack Iran" talk started at the same time China was negotiating some very big deals with the Iranians.

Edward, you might find this an interesting read.

This article ("The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker") was written before the 2004 elections.
Some interesting quotes:

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of 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. [1] 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 in Iraq.

Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

"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." [2]

Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.

I don't think that it is the Haliburton connection that has the most to gain from a war with Iran (all due respect to Turbo-1's opinion) but rather it is Big Oil and the hegemony of the US Dollar.

 

[turbo]

I don't think that it is the Haliburton connection that has the most to gain from a war with Iran (all due respect to Turbo-1's opinion) but rather it is Big Oil and the hegemony of the US Dollar.

When Big Oil wins, Halliburton wins, and wins big. Their product is not subject to volatility. They are REALLY big in the mechanical side of oil exploration, extraction, equipment maintenance, etc. They are moving their corporate headquarters to the ME to take advantage of the invasion and its aftermath (and to avoid paying taxes in the US). The service/contractor side of the oil industry is very lucrative. They provide equipment, skills, and services to the oil industry such that the oil companies can take those costs off the bottom line (before taxes) and free up the oil companies from having to maintain large stocks of specialized equipment and crews of skilled technicians (with their associated costs) and allow them to pay for these services on an as-needed basis. Halliburton will clean up, and so will a certain Vice President.

 

[chemisttree]

Are they building anything in Iran?

 

[edward]

Are they building anything in Iran?

They were as of 05, despite the fact that they claimed they were pulling out of Iran. Right now they are looking at Iraq. For that matter Haliburton was looking at Iraq before the 03 invasion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

 

[baywax]

Are they building anything in Iran?

Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html

 

[Phred101.2]

I've just joined this thread, has anyone discussed the nuke missile "accident" that happened a while back?

 

[chemisttree]

They were as of 05, despite the fact that they claimed they were pulling out of Iran. Right now they are looking at Iraq. For that matter Haliburton was looking at Iraq before the 03 invasion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

And they want to the Administration to go to war?
Could someone explain that to me?
Why not just let the subsidiary do business as usual? Must be an even more evil and sinister reason I'm sure.
Oh, that's right... Cheney is Satan.

 

[kach22i]

And they want to the Administration to go to war?
Could someone explain that to me?
Why not just let the subsidiary do business as usual? Must be an even more evil and sinister reason I'm sure.
Oh, that's right... Cheney is Satan.

Some have said, and I think in this very thread that the war posturing could just be a ploy to work out oil and oil pipeline deals away from China (and maybe Russia).

The reason Russia and France were against the Iraq war is they held the oil contracts with Saddam. Saddam is gone and so are the old deals.

And also the worry of switching to Euros is gone.

Win, win for Cheney & Co.

 

[kach22i]

what Dr. Ahmadinejad is talking about is Palestinian's right to have they're country. Israel achieved the land of Palestine by force of army, and is keeping it by force.

I've read recently that the land owners of the defunked Ottoman Empire (Turks) sold the land and sometimes disputed lands (disputed ownership) of the Palestinians to the then new Jewish nation. I read this in the context of why Turkey is the only Muslim ally of Israel.

have you ever heard this story?

What do you make of it?

Follow the money..."Palestine's Rural Economy, 1917 - 1939"
http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/rural_palestine.htm

acceptable collateral such as title deeds, required by the Ottoman Agricultural Bank for the tendering of loans, gave the moneylender, who was offered inadequate security for his loans

 

[kach22i]

about 20% of the land has got that way. and jews had 2 persons in Palestinian government. and then Israel attacked Palestine with helps of US and England. and Palestinians has 0 persons in Israeli government!

I've read that Israel also attacked (using terrorism) the ruling British authorities.

 

[baywax]

"Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071017/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc

No mention of oil deals or pipelines in this speech... more of the same BS & bullying.

Is this how the Bushs celebrate Halloween? More terror, war and scarey talk? Is someone going to come up with a better way to secure America's energy future? Try pouring 100 billion into alternate energies research. Try spending 100 billion on getting a deal with Iran. They might even go for it.

 

[Phred101.2]

I wonder how many Americans have dreamed about a nuclear weapon poised over the country since the "accidental deployment"? I know there are warehouses full of things I don't know about the US military somewhere, but I'm pretty sure they don't f**k with the nukes (but that's probably just me). Of course, it was a procedural error, right? Some grunt forgot to take the right form or something?

 

[kach22i]

"Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071017/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc

From the article:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

I hate it when he starts making sense.

Why do the Muslim, Arab Muslim countries hate Israel so much? It's not just about land is it?

It's not like Israel ever did to the Palestinians what the Turks did to the Armenians or the Nazis to the Jews it it?

I've never heard of a Palestinian Genocide or Holocaust, have you?

Lots of Google hits though (Palestinian Genocide Holocaust):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cd=1&q=Palestinian+Genocide+Holocaust&spell=1

 

[kach22i]

that's because western medias boycotted news on Palestinian genocides. tens of thousands Palestinians died in past in their houses, and many are slaughtered everyday.

this is what I saw with my eyes:

I don't trust the news, least of all the US Press, they have failed the nation just as the two party system has.

When you say: this is what I saw with my eyes:, you mean in a documentary movie of some sort, right?