|
|
Tags for This Article:
Military (2807) Iran (2400) Oil (1261) American Foreign Policy (577) Hegemony (135)
|
Add to My Group
A response to Ellen Brown's Compound Interest Theory Ellen’s ‘Compound Interest’ idea may explain an element of the current US warmongering against Iran, but it cannot be a major factor. This is simply because Iran is far too small a player in the global financial markets. The 'Compound Interest' idea would be more applicable to a world devoid of major financial power centres like Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa and India, who are also quietly but surely dumping the US dollar from their currency reserves. Witness the steady rise of gold in recent years. We are in effect heading back to the gold standard, despite the Bretton Woods institutions. America is bound to follow suit (see Ron Paul’s stance for example). In a sense, the machinations of the US or British financial institutions may be real, but they are increasingly devoid of global influence. Similarly, Ellen's emphasis on the impact of the privatisation of social services and other state assets is not really relevant today, as the trend have swung in the opposite direction by now - the state is coming back in (if indeed it had ever left the scene) even within the World Bank and UN development policy prescriptions. Witness the range of socialist governments popping up all over the place. US warmongering is better explained by a number of other and far more important factors. Chief among these is the fact that the US economy is essentially a war-based one that thrives on fear. It needs a state of permanent foreign war to grow and suppress other economic competitors. The US and UK together account for over 50% of the world's trade in armaments. Services aside, US industries produce little more than weapons, planes and petroleum products any longer. In most other areas - save for the i phone and other exceptions to the general rule - US industries are uncompetitive. Iran would be an easy target for launching a new war as compared to other stronger or weaker nations. The latter can be harder to attack because of political limitations on the US government - hence, the US Administration’s thirst for war with Iran in particular. Second, the petrodollar cycle is the other pillar of the US economy. Its disruption would also directly undermine the US military industry. Oil trade in Euros or other currencies would significantly accelerate the demise of America's uncompetitive economy. Iran is among the leaders in the drive to break the back of the cycle, which in simple economic terms, is highly unsustainable and damaging for the world economy in any case. The petrodollar cycle distorts prices, benefits the military industrial complex at the expense of others, strengthens the speculators and financiers, causes (and masks) the bubble effect, and ensures that there is no real added value underpinnings for the dollar. Third, no major producer country in the oil-rich Middle East region can be allowed to become truly powerful, democratic or independent. It would be a direct threat to the US oil addiction. Iran's admirable pride (regardless of the truly unacceptable aspects of the regime) and its planned oil bourse represent a real challenge to US hegemony and economy, as is the planned Russian bourse that you refer to. But who is going to launch an attack on Russia now? Was it an accident that the UK was so keenly on board with the atrocities against Iraq, while the (old) European countries and Russia were basically against the same? Saddam despised the Brits for their past misdeeds in the region, and was determined to shut both the US & UK out of any lucrative deals. The Europeans on the other hand were gaining much from Saddam's resentment toward the US/UK in terms of oil trade in Euros and future reconstruction contracts in the offing. Saddam's violent removal by the US was as much a proxy war against Europe's rise and that of the Euro as it was about slapping down yet another cocky Middle Eastern ruler who imagined he could grow a brain. The effort backfired because the intention to steal Iraqi oil to pay for all the expanses could not be realized, thanks to Iraqi resistance. That the US had failed to factor in the inevitable resistance is quite astonishing, but the current US Administration appears to be somewhat IQ-challenged. Instead of getting cheap oil, the American invasion directly resulted in the opposite effect coupled with further soaring of America’s national debt. A ‘bad investment’, as someone coldly put it. And this time there was no Kuwaiti or Saudi promise to cover the US military costs. 'Rent-a-mob-to-control-Saddam' was no longer the Kuwait/Saudi policy. Increasing Russian dissent is also a direct reaction to the same US militarism and oil-grabbing tendencies. The US' war and fear mongering drive to protect its 'interest' is not driven by concern for interests on loans. It is a concrete, unabashed form of militarism based on a war economy and driven by a deluded corporate drive for world hegemony and the control of oil resources. A project that is already doomed to fail, as the US economy heads toward self-waterboarding; drowning in an ocean of debt with inadequate hard production capacity to underwrite the dollar's underserved value. In sum, the US financial sector has diminishing influence in a multi-polar world, the appearance of which appears to have escaped most Americans or major media organs. The current US warmongering is little more than the desperate cries of a dying empire too arrogant to seek medical help. The sooner America wakes up to the reality of a new world order, the easier it will be for us all. For now, most of us in Iran pray that there will be enough enlightened American brothers and sisters who care enough for humanity to make sure that there is no more war inflicted on the Middle East region for the sake of dollars and oil. We didn’t expect this from the land of the free. Some of us, including me, still believe that there is hope.
An average Iranian.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
