Published on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 by Media Monitors Network
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse By William
“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
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”). 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
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.
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 
The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite the adverse
impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil sales. (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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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 Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office,
has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency
plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United
States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional
and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.
Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken
out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. 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. Several senior Air Force officers
involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they
are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no
one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
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.”
This article carefully noted this assessment was a “consensus among U.S. intelligence
agencies, [and in] contrast with forceful public statements by the White House.”
The question remains, Why would the Vice President advocate a possible tactical
nuclear attack against Iran in the event of another major terrorist attack against
the U.S. – even if Tehran was innocent of involvement?
Perhaps one of the answers relates to the same obfuscated reasons why the U.S.
launched an unprovoked invasion to topple the Iraq government – macroeconomics
and the desperate desire to maintain U.S. economic supremacy. In essence, petrodollar
hegemoy is eroding, which will ultimately force the U.S. to significantly change
its current tax, debt, trade, and energy policies, all of which are severely unbalanced.
World oil production is reportedly “flat out,” and yet the neoconservatives are
apparently willing to undertake huge strategic and tactical risks in the Persian
Gulf. Why? Quite simply – their stated goal is U.S. global domination – at any
To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based
oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard,
or oil ‘marker' as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers
dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway
Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the summer of 2003 Iran has
required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports
– although the oil pricing of these trades was still denominated in the dollar.
Therefore a potentially significant news story was reported in June 2004 announcing
Iran's intentions to create of an Iranian oil bourse. This announcement portended
competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London's International
Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
[Both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by a U.S. consortium, and operated by an Atlanta-based
corporation, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.]
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse are noteworthy.
Considering that in mid-2003 Iran switched its oil payments from E.U. and ACU
customers to the euro, and thus it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse
will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. This
event would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system
for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective,
a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports
more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounted for 45%
of exports sold to the Middle East. (Following the May 2004 enlargement, this
percentage likely increased).
Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S. corporate media conglomerates,
these foreign news stories suggest one of the Federal Reserve's nightmares may
begin to unfold in the spring of 2006, when it appears that international buyers
will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 dollars on the NYMEX and
IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for
€45 - €50 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains
its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that
some sort of US "intervention" is not launched against Iran.
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.
It is unclear at the time of writing if this project will be successful, or could
it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions – thereby signaling the second phase
of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East.
Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the
emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising
given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in
comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
What we are witnessing is a battle for oil currency supremacy. If Iran's oil bourse
becomes a successful alternative for international oil trades, it would challenge
the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and
New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article:
Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that
could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange.
…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that
western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which
have a vested interest in market volatility.
The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. “We would not have
any comment to make on it at this stage,” said an IPE spokeswoman. 
During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive,
described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros.
He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated
(2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains
parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU's proposed expansion plans
Notably, both of the later two criteria have
transpired: the euro's valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and
the euro-based E.U.
enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries. Despite recent “no” votes by French
and Dutch voters regarding a common E.U. Constitution, from a macroeconomic perspective,
these domestic disagreements do no reduce the euro currency's trajectory in the
global financial markets – and from Russia and OPEC's perspective – do not adversely
impact momentum towards a petroeuro. In the meantime, the U.K. remains uncomfortably
juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S.
banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U.
financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).
The most recent news reports indicate the oil bourse will start trading on March
20, 2006, coinciding with the Iranian New Year. 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.  
China's announcement in July 2005 that it was re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not
nearly as important as its decision to divorce itself from a U.S. dollar peg by
moving towards a “basket of currencies” – likely to include the yen, euro, and
dollar. Additionally, the Chinese re-valuation immediately lowered their monthly
imported “oil bill” by 2%, given that oil trades are still priced in dollars,
but it is unclear how much longer this monopoly arrangement will last.
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.)  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
(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
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
desires to enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks of an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis between Washington
It is increasingly clear that a confrontation and possible war with Iran may transpire
during the second Bush term. Clearly, there are numerous tactical risks regarding
neoconservative strategy towards Iran.
First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, 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 – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass.
The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene
covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 or 2006 in a desperate effort to prevent
the initiation of euro-denominated international crude oil sales? Commentators
in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S.
intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making
matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential
effects on the U.S. economy.
…If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to
improve the situation…There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of
Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown...Iran is obviously a more complex case
than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely
transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently,
and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror,
and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if
A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil
transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the
monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous
U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding
oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps
another CIA-backed coup such as operation "Ajax” from 1953.
Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence
agencies to facilitate ‘interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous
for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey
Institute of International Studies warned of the possible consequences of a preemptive
attack on Iran's nuclear
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on
U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence
of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear
facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international
stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran.
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
However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and E.U. nations
such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N.
Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability
regarding a terrorist attack in the U.S. A unilateral military strike on Iran
would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is
conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations
to strategically abandon the dollar en masse.
Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC and Russia to move towards
a monopoly petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S. dollar and thwart
the U.S. global military presence. I refer to this in my book as the “rogue nation
hypothesis.” (A similar tactic was used by the U.S. to end the 1956 Suez
While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant
to ‘dump the dollar,' the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward
from their government's perspective – the global community is dependent on the
oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf.
Hence, industrialized nations would likely move in tandem on the currency exchange
markets in an effort to thwart the neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate
strategy of dominating the world's largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such
efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to
cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people
per se – but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive
effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian
Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse
will open in March 2006.
Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and
OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because
it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies;
from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under
the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of
– James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
 Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the
Education of Paul O' Neill, Simon & Schuster publishers (2004)  Richard
A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press (2004)
 William Clark, “Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth,” January
2003 (updated January 2004)
 Peter Philips, Censored 2004, The Top 25 Censored News Stories, Seven Stories
Press, (2003) General website for Project Censored: www.projectcensored.org/ Story
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
 Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the international oil market,"
Financial Times, June 5, 2003  Faisal Islam, “Iraq nets handsome profit by
dumping dollar for euro,” [UK] Guardian, February 16,
 “Oil bourse closer to reality,” IranMania.com, December 28, 2004. Also see:
“Iran oil bourse wins authorization,” Tehran Times, July 26, 2005
 “War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike,”
Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. Online:
 James Fallows, “Will Iran be Next?,” Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, pgs.
97 – 110
 Seymour Hersh, “The Coming Wars,” The New Yorker, January 24th – 31st issue,
2005, pgs. 40-47 Posted online January 17, 2005. Online:
 Philip Giraldi, “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,” American Conservative,
August 1, 2005
 Dafina Linzer, “Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. Intelligence
Review Contrasts With Administration Statements,” Washington Post, August 2, 2005;
 C. Shivkumar, “Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms,” The Hindu
Business Line (June 16, 2003).
 Terry Macalister, “Iran takes on west's control of oil trading,” The [UK]
Guardian, June 16, 2004 www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
 “The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given
by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International
Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's
Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain) www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
 “Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006,” Reuters, October 5, 2004
 “Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar,” AFP, June 9, 2003
 “China to diversify foreign exchange reserves,”
China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004
 Richard S. Appel, “The Repercussions from the Yuan's Revaluation,” kitco.com,
July 27, 2005 www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html
 “China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,” China Daily, October 31, 2004.
 Analysis of Abu Musa Island,
 “Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences,”
News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
 Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, “A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities:
Possible Consequences,” Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12,
2004 (updated September 9, 2004) cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William Clark has recently published, via New Society publishers, Petrodollar
Warfare - Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar.
The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far
from being a response to
9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare
argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena:
the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.
Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there
will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second
largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests.
Together with the fact that Iraq had switched its oil currency trade to euros
— rather than U.S. dollars — the Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent
further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency
Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar hegemony and
the unsustainable macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling,' pointing out that
the issues underlying the Iraq War also apply to geopolitical tensions between
the U.S. and other countries including the member states of the European Union
(EU), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without changing course,
the American Experiment will end the way all empires end – with military over-extension
and subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both
energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to create a more
balanced global energy and monetary system – thereby reducing the possibility
of future oil depletion and oil currency-related warfare.
A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S.
unilateralism, Petrodollar Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about
the future global political economy.
About the Author: William Clark has received two Project Censored awards for his
research on oil currency conflict, and has recently published a book, Petrodollar
Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (New Society Publishers, 2005).
He is an Information Security Analyst, and holds a Master of Business Administration
and Master of Science in Information and Telecommunication Systems from Johns
Hopkins University. He lives near Bethesda, Maryland.
Copyright © 2003-2005 William Clark
Reprinted for Fair Use Only
Article found at :
Original article :
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com