 | I am deeply concerned about the ramping up in rhetoric about Iran’s imagined nuclear weapons programme. I say “imagined” because there is no evidence pointing towards Iran doing anything other than they say they are doing – following a civilian nuclear power programme.
In fact, this bluster has nothing at all to do with the power of atoms, peaceful or otherwise. From my point of view, it’s all about controlling the price of fuel. |
|
Economic sanctions against Iran are being considered on the basis of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and activities, and this I would consider highly deceitful. The “international community” may well impose further trade embargoes on Iran, but the underlying reason for such action has nothing to do with nuclear suspicion. I believe that applying economic sanctions against Iran is all about forcing Iran to export more fossil fuel – principally Natural Gas – and to do so cheaply. In fact, there is a two-pronged assault on Iran’s energy sovereignty taking place – not only are economic sanctions already in place, there are calls from the highest top table for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. People have been cheering this on because at first glance it looks like a carbon control policy, but in reality it will lead to Western economic occupation of Iranian hydrocarbons – an occupation, it is hoped, to be accomplished without finding some excuse for a military intervention. Make that a three-pronged attack, perhaps – there is evidence to support the supposition that foreign involvement is rousing Iran’s anti-Government opposition – after a lull. And why are we talking about Natural Gas and not petroleum oil ? Recent events suggest that the Middle East Natural Gas producers are looking to raise more revenue in future from gas instead of oil. Here is part of an e-mail exchange I had recently with a member of the Claverton Energy Research Group forum :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Subject: ‘Eccentric’ nuclear plans threaten UK’s part in renewables revolution, expert warns Jo, see comment below re. fossil fuel subsidies. You and I had this talk before. The alleged total $409bn fossil subsidy is a big surprise to me, I cannot relate to this number, I question its validity and where he got the data from (unspecified….maybe some individual campaigner’s web blog?). I suspect that, if it is real, a lot of it is actually general ‘consumer-end’ subsidies in ex-Communist states (inc’ China) + some Far Eastern countries to keep all energy cheap at point-of-use as part of Gov’t general social policy… =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Subject: ‘Eccentric’ nuclear plans threaten UK’s part in renewables revolution, expert warns Thanks for all the information and links and views. I am only going to reply very briefly, on the subject of fossil fuel subsidies. The figures quoted by Schellnhuber come from the International Energy Agency (OECD), G20 and other country groupings, who are making a big noise about fossil fuel (and nuclear) subsidies :- https://www.iea.org/weo/subsidies.asp I agree with you – it’s not quite what it seems. Much of the accounted subsidies are end consumer subsidies within producer countries, to stimulate economic development. You only need to look at a list of the top fossil fuel subsidy countries to understand this :- https://www.iea.org/work/2011/rewp/Session_1_Birol.pdf Number 1 : Iran – a producer nation – clearly using subsidies for economic development at home What would the net result of cutting fossil fuel subsidies be ? That’s right – the countries would have to sell their oil and gas abroad because their own people could no longer afford it. And what would happen if all that fuel gets released to the global markets ? Why, the price will come down, of course. So the policy to cut fossil fuel subsidies is ostensibly a carbon reduction policy but actually it’s a global fossil fuel price control policy. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Another link, again from a very prestigious organisation. The name Tony Blair springs to mind…I wonder what he’s got to do with this ? Ah yes – one of the former “architects” of the oil Occupation of Iraq :- https://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/october/26/iea-calls-for-end-to-fossil-fuel-subsidies/ | |
3 replies on “Cheering on the Occupation”
The anti-Iran rhetoric is certainly not really about nuclear weapons, as the US National Intelligence Estimates of 2007, 2009 and 2011 (basically what the US intelligence agencies believe) say Iran hasn’t had a nuclear weapons program since 2003, if then.
The rhetoric is to demonise the country before invading it and taking its oil and gas for nothing – just like the WMDs Iraq was supposed to have, before it was invaded and no WMDs found.
In Libya the excuse was that Gaddafi was threatening to kill his people with planes and tanks. In the end it was the rebels who killed the people with the tanks, and NATO used planes and drones.
In Syria the claim is indiscriminate shooting of peaceful protesters, but as we now know, he is fighting an army rebellion that uses rocket propelled grenades against military targets. Is Assad not allowed to fight back ?
Afghanistan is different. There the prize is – what? It is the world’s biggest producer of opium/heroin and the US is the biggest buyer (which they seem to be unable to control – really?)
The US Empire’s 1% is going all out for world domination, ably assisted by its sycophants, the UK/Europe’s %1 and Australia’s 1%. They have to hurry because the financial system is about to blow up in their faces unless they can rake in more profits quickly.
Unless you see things in their correct light, all your attempts to unravel what is going on are going to be fruitless.
And while I’m all fired up,have you noticed how Greece and Italy have turned over their democratic power to 2 Prime Minsters who are both unelected, and in Italy’s case to an entirely unelected cabinet.
Mario Monti is Chair of the European branch of the Tri-Lateral Commission, and Papademos is also a member.
The TLC is a very special club for 1%-ers – look it up on Wikipedia and see who is in it. They are already running the UK.
Again I find myself in complete agreement with you Jo( see my other comment on Libya awaiting moderation) while being a sceptic of CAGW (or whatever the name is this week).
As for subsidies, petrol is not subsidised in any developed country, I’ve had this discussion with local greens who think that somehow fuel is subsidised in Australia when the price is 60% or so tax. What the??? No one has been able to show me a fuel subsidy in Australia without ignoring the tax component.
As for the countries you list subsidising fuel, if fuel subsidies were abolished especially in those oil producing countries, the resultant unrest would see those governments “abolished”! Imagine living in an oil producing country and not being able to afford to buy fuel.
As for Iran, I find it totally disgusting how the west ie. The US/UK+hangers on like Australia, Canada etc have acted in such a deliberate manner in demonising the country whilst encircling it over a period of a decade or so(though I think it’s been in the sights of the US since the Shah was given the boot). The US doesn’t forget, very vindictive government/culture in many ways.
Add to this the undeniably huge influence that Israel holds over the US and there is, if not the answer, at least a large part of it. Iran is Israel’s enemy and they want to use the US to take out their enemy, same as in Iraq.
I hope that they fail. The UK and later the US have been the biggest warmonger the world has ever seen, at least this side of Ghengis Khan, whereas Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in 200 years.
cheers