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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
