Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



So ask yourself: Why was the U.S.A. so bent on going to war against Iraq, even when international opinion condemned just such an act? And why is the the United States so determined now to give us a repeat performance, but this time with Iran? What's really going on? What are the true motivations behind America's behavior? Now, some of you reading this may say to yourselves, "Wait a minute! What is all of this talk about the U.S.A. attacking Iran? President Bush has no such plans! In fact, sanctions were just leveled against Iran by the UN."

Excuse me, but are you certain that Bush has no such plans? If you honestly believe that, then I wonder if you've really been paying attention to the news, and using your critical thought processes to their maximum potential. Do you really not see the parallels between how the Bush Administration demonized Saddam Hussein, used the WMD wild card, and then attacked Iraq, and how the same exact tactics are being used against Iran right now? It is the same familiar pattern all over again: discredit, demonize, feign patient diplomacy, and then attack! Here it is again:

Discredit - Demonize - Feign Patient Diplomacy - Attack

Yes, sanctions were just recently implemented against Iran; but wasn't that same action taken against Iraq for many years as well? Didn't the Americans and the British set up no-fly zones over Iraq? In the end, the Iraqi people were hurt more by the sanctions than Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were. I was just looking at an Associated Press news article that I shared with the members of our mailing list in July of 2000. This article clearly states that it was the U.N. sanctions, which were imposed following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the Gulf War, which crippled the economy of Iraq, and drove literally millions of Iraqis into poverty. We can argue that it was Saddam's fault that the sanctions were imposed in the first place, but the truth is, that the United Nations, under American pressure, implemented the sanctions, which resulted in millions of Iraqis suffering:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Saddam made no mention of the U.N. trade sanctions which have crippled the economy and driven millions of Iraqis into poverty. The sanctions were imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War."

----- End Quote -----

In spite of the sanctions, and the no-fly zones, is it not true that the USA still ended up attacking Iraq anyway, and against world opinion at that? So what makes you so certain that the current sanctions against Iran are going to deter the Bush Administration from attacking Iran, if and when it feels that the time is right?

You see, despite outward appearances, I suspect that Iran's adamant refusal to discontinue processing its uranium, may be exactly what the United States wants, and may even be working to the US's favor. Why? Because then, just as with Iraq, the United States can go to the U.N., and say "See! The sanctions aren't working; something more drastic needs to be done in order to stop the uranium enrichment being done by Iran."

Let me remind you again that the Bush Administration has repeatedly said, insofar as Iran is concerned, all options are still on the table; and that obviously includes military options. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the US will be the one to crack the whip. As you may have heard on the news, or read somewhere on the Internet, there has been some talk that Israel may decide to strike first, in order to knock out Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities; just as she took similar action against Iraq, when Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the attack against the Osirak nuclear power plant in 1981. These rumors could turn out to be true, or they may just be a diversionary tactic. Based on what I know now, I suspect that the United States is looking for a more permanent solution to their problem; just as they did with Iraq. Destroying Natanz, for example, won't eliminate the real problem.

You see, what you need to understand is that the uranium enrichment issue is not the real problem; at least I don't think it is. Were WMD the real problem in Iraq, or was that just the red herring; that is, the excuse that America used to attack Iraq? I think most of you already know the answer to that question, or at least you should. So that brings us back around to our main questions again: If WMD wasn't the real problem that the USA was having with Iraq, then what was? And if uranium enrichment, which the USA alleges, will ultimately result in Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons, is not the real problem now, then what is?

What if I were to tell you that the problem, or perhaps I should really be saying the threat, that the United States perceived from Iraq, and now perceives from Iran, are one and the same? What kind of threat could possibly convince the American Government, in spite of world opinion being totally against it, that it must go to war? There is only one logical answer here: the threat of losing its place of dominance in the world. Remember what I told you earlier. America's secret weapon is the billions of US dollars that it has foisted upon the world over the last three decades, as a result of the convenient agreement that it made with Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations. As long as the world has been forced to pay for their oil in US dollars, America has remained in charge, and she has pushed her weight around at every given opportunity. The last six years of the Bush Administration are clear proof of this, but it didn't start with Bush by any means. He is just one of the more blatant U.S. presidents to tell the rest of the world what to do.

Let me give you a clear example of this. I was just looking through some old email that was sent out on our mailing list in the early part of the year 2000. I came across one email entitled "US Dollar Official Currency In Ecuador", where I included a news article regarding how Congress had passed a law which would make the U.S. dollar the official currency of Ecuador. What?! Isn't Ecuador a sovereign South American nation? You bet it is; or at least it was. As a result of internal financial problems, Ecuador's local currency, the sucre, was seriously devalued, and the Ecuadorean economy became the most unstable economy in all of Latin America. In an attempt to stabilize the economy, the nation's president decided to "dollarize" the nation. Part of the article says:

----- Begin Quote -----

In a desperate attempt to stabilize South America's most rickety economy, Congress passed a law in early March to phase out the sucre, which lost two-thirds of its value last year amid a severe recession. The sucre now trades at 25,000 to the dollar, and its rapid devaluation fueled annual inflation rates of 80 percent -- the highest rate in Latin America.

Under the government plan, the dollar will be the main domestic currency, replacing the sucre, which will only remain in circulation for small purchases. As of April 1, Ecuadoreans have found that bank cash machines dispense only greenbacks and not the multicolored sucres -- often filthy and torn.

----- End Quote -----

Without going into a lot of detail, the article explains that some of the reasons why Ecuador fell into financial disarray in the first place, is because of low prices on its primary export -- which is oil -- natural disasters which wrecked the nation's infrastructure -- and its crops -- and its inability to pay its external debts. In other words, as with so many poor nations, it became caught in the trap of owing too much money to the International Monetary Fund, which it couldn't pay back. Let me also remind you that the price of oil is artificially manipulated. In short, the powers-that-be purposely created the problem by wrecking the economy of Ecuador, and then they offered their own solution, and put Ecuador squarely in America's grip. The article also states that many Ecuadoreans were confused, and not happy at all with the sudden switch to a U.S. dollar economy; but what can they do? Absolutely nothing. Ecuador is now another slave of the American Empire, plain and simple.

But let's get back to our discussion regarding Iraq and Iran. So how did Iraq threaten American dominance? What did Saddam Hussein do that caused King George -- Bush -- to say "Off with Saddam's head!"? He did the exact same thing that Iran is doing now. What is Iran doing that is so threatening to the United States? Actually, I have already given you the answer; or at least what I now believe may be the real answer. It is the Iranian Oil Bourse. It's quite possible that I read about this years ago, and just forgot about it; but according to Professor Petrov, and other sources, in late 2000, Saddam Hussein decided, or perhaps "insisted" is a more appropriate word, that he would only accept Euros for Iraqi oil, just as Iran is doing now. In his commentary, Professor Petrov states in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

"The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order."

"Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished."

----- End Quote -----

As Petrov states, if Saddam would have gotten away with it, other OPEC countries may have very well followed suit. In fact, as you can see, Iran was very quick to hop on the Euro bandwagon, because it wanted to hurt the United States, the "Great Satan", just as bad as Saddam did. As we have already seen, the United States of America simply couldn't allow it to happen; just as it cannot allow it to happen now with Iran; because the success of the Iranian Oil Bourse would eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. economy, and as a by-product, terminate America's dominance in the world.

So that, my friends, is what I now believe, and what others also believe, is the real problem; as it is perceived from America's perspective. It has absolutely nothing to do with real WMD in either Iraq or Iran. In both instances, WMD has only been the red herring that the Bush Administration has used to try to deceive the American people, and fool the rest of the world. The real problem, the real threat to the American Empire, as Professor Petrov referred to it, is the simple fact that both Iraq and Iran chose to convert their economies to the Euro. They decided to accept Euros, instead of U.S. dollars, for their oil exports, and that is a direct threat to the U.S. dollar's current standing as the world's currency reserve. In a February 21, 2003 commentary entitled "Why Black Americans Should Oppose Bush's War -- Of Oil, The Euro And Africa", Dr. Sonja Ebron, CEO of "blackEnergy" says it very well when she tells us that the real WMD in Iraq and Iran, is Euros. She writes:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Enter the real "weapon of mass destruction," the euro. Eleven European countries formed a monetary union around this currency on January 1, 1999; Britain and Norway, the major European oil producers, were conspicuously absent. Due to the strength of European economies, the euro now presents a serious challenge to the dollar in its role as key reserve currency."

"Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy, an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet."

----- End Quote -----

So what did the United States do to try to stop Saddam from carrying out his plan? News articles from that time period make it very clear what America did. As we saw a moment ago, the Iraqi economy had already been crippled by almost ten years of U.N. sanctions, and millions of people were out of work. In addition to this, the country had been sliced up by the Americans and the British into three sections, with a no-fly zone in the northern sector, and another no-fly zone in the south. In spite of these tactics, Saddam was still in power. During the same year that Saddam began making demands for Euros in exchange for Iraqi oil -- 2000 -- the American Government, under President William Jefferson Clinton, made it very clear what its intentions were regarding the Iraqi leader. One way or another, they were determined to get him out of office. An Associated Press news article, which I also shared with our mailing list members on August 4, 2000, confirms that the so-called "regime change" plans did not begin with George W. Bush; they began with Bill Clinton:

----- Begin Quote -----

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The 10th anniversary of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait passed with the Clinton administration admitting that many U.S. goals remain unfulfilled, including the ouster of President Saddam Hussein . . . Welch conceded that the February 1991 liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition was not the final chapter of the Iraq saga. Saddam has not given up his weapons of mass destruction and continues abusive practices, officials said."

----- End Quote -----

Please also notice from the previous news excerpt, that the WMD deception did not begin with George W. Bush. President Bill Clinton was pushing the very same lie, as a strategy to demonize Saddam Hussein. How could Saddam give up something which he did not possess, as U.N. inspections had clearly shown? George W. Bush just continued the WMD deception, in order to justify the coming war before the eyes of a naive American public. Both U.S. presidents knew that Saddam did not possess WMD, because Mohamed ElBaradei, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency had repeatedly told them so. In another news article that I shared with our list readers on August 4, 2000, Scott Ritter stated that Iraq did not pose a threat to any of its neighbors. In late January 2003, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who is the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, addressed the U.N. Security Council, after having conducted a two-month investigation in Iraq. According to a CNN News report, while elBaradei didn't give Iraq a perfect score, he did conclude his lengthy report with the following remarks:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Mr. President, members of the council, for the past 60 days the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have been engaged in the process of verifying the existence or absence of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq . . . we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s."

----- End Quote -----

In spite of these, and other attempts, to convince the U.S., and other members of the United Nations, that Iraq did not possess WMD, from 2000, until the Spring of 2003 when the U.S. invasion of Iraq actually occurred, the United States Government, as well as the British Government, engaged in a concerted effort to convince their constituents of the exact opposite. As I've already stated, the public of both nations were repeatedly bombarded with sly insinuations, baseless allegations, and carefully crafted disinformation, in order to heighten the levels of fear and paranoia, so that in the end, they would support their governments, and agree to the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq. It obviously worked.

Dr. Sonja Ebron, who we discussed earlier, likewise mentions America's strategy in her 2003 commentary. Please note that her article was written several months prior to the actual invasion of Iraq. Not pulling any punches, she explains that once the U.S.A. realized how serious Saddam Hussein was regarding switching to the Euro, and realizing how adversely it would affect the American economy if other oil-producing nations were to follow his example, they crafted a strategy to destroy OPEC. She writes:

----- Begin Quote -----

"The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC is twofold: pressure non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market control, and change the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro (hence, the "axis of evil")."

"[The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC] . . . requires that the U.S. military assert our interests in oil and gas deposits worldwide. U.S. interests in the Caspian Sea have been secured through regime change in Afghanistan and a deal for a new pipeline through that country."

"U.S. interests in southwest Asia are being secured through the planned invasion of Iraq, then Iran (both OPEC members) if it switches oil denomination."

----- End Quote -----

So in essence, according to the American strategy, as viewed by Dr. Ebron and Professor Petrov, any world leader who would attempt to switch their country's economy from a dollar-based economy to a Euro-based economy, would automatically become a target of American aggression, and would also be eligible for elimination, if they didn't back down from their decision. In other words, this was Clinton and Bush's "regime change" plan in action.

As crazy as that may seem to some people, I am convinced that it's exactly what the United States decided to do; and she's proven it by her very own actions. Please also note that in her previous comments, Dr. Ebron states in parentheses "hence, the "axis of evil". As you will recall, earlier we discussed how President George W. Bush assigned that description to the nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. According to the Bush propaganda, this is supposedly because all three countries have been illegally striving to create nuclear weapons. As I stated at the very beginning of this article, when it comes to the American Government, things are not always what they seem; and this is clearly a case of that. For years now, the American Government has been feeding us a distorted picture regarding this entire issue. Millions of American citizens are currently convinced that the reason why George W. Bush has gone after Iraq, Iran and North Korea, that is, their "Axis of Evil", is because of WMD. It's bogus. It's a lie. It's an utter deception being used to hide the truth from all of us.

We have already seen why the U.S.A. has demonized Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, but how in the world does Kim Jong Il's North Korea fit into the picture? It is not Islamic or Arab; and it is most certainly not an oil exporter; so why has the leader of North Korea been targeted? Personally, I would have never figured it out, but Dr. Ebron's article has established a clear link; and it fits perfectly into everything that we have been discussing. In her same commentary she writes:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Iraq's move to the euro -- and Iran's expected move -- are placing tremendous pressure on OPEC countries and other oil producers to drop our dollar as the main transaction currency for oil."

"Jordan began using euros to buy oil as soon as its major supplier, Iraq, began using them to sell, and North Korea switched to the euro late last year to protest the U.S.'s halt in fuel aid."

----- End Quote -----

You see; exactly what America feared, began to happen as soon as Saddam Hussein made the decision to accept Euros for his oil, instead of U.S. dollars, and that is why they held him accountable, and decided that it was time for him to go. It had nothing to do with any alleged WMD in his country. Iran then followed suit and also decided that it would switch to a Euro-based economy. Jordan likewise made the same decision.

But lo and behold! Look who else decided to start purchasing their oil with Euros instead of dollars in 2002: Kim Jong Il of North Korea. He knew exactly how to hit the USA where it hurts; and that is why he has been blacklisted as part of the US's so-called Axis of Evil. Under U.S. pressure, North Korea was deprived of its fuel aid, and so Kim Jong Il fought back in December of 2002 by dumping the U.S. dollar from the North Korean economy. A BBC news report dated Dec. 1, 2002, with a heading of "North Korea Embraces The Euro", states in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

Communist North Korea has said it will stop using American dollars from Sunday and start using euros instead.

The decision was made soon after a US-led international consortium announced that it was halting fuel aid to the state because of its covert nuclear weapons programme.

No official reason was given for the move but many analysts believe the dollar ban is a direct political response to Washington's decision last month to halt fuel aid to the North because of its nuclear programme."

----- End Quote -----

Of course, that is not the only reason why the United States is so upset with Kim Jong Il. It seems that for some time now, ever-resourceful Kim has been flooding the world money market with counterfeit $100 bills. In a Dec. 2006 article with the heading "The Plan To Destroy America - Via The Dollar", well-known author Hal Lindsey had this to say:

----- Begin Quote -----

"For years, North Korea's Kim Jong-il has been flooding the global economy with so-called "supernotes" -- counterfeit U.S. $100 bills so good even Secret Service agents can't tell the difference without conducting sophisticated tests."

"The strategy is to flood the market with counterfeit dollars to deflate its value. Then to convert U.S. holdings to euros, thus pushing the dollar into a deflationary freefall."

----- End Quote -----

All of this makes perfect sense to me. It fits like a hand in a glove. All three nations, Iraq, Iran and North Korea became victims of America's WMD lies and accusations, and all three nations chose to drop the dollar, and move to a Euro-based economy. Do you think that this is just merely a coincidence? I most certainly don't.

In that same article, Lindsey also mentions how China, Iran and Venezuela have each taken great strides to convert their economies to a Euro-based framework, thus hoping to speed up the destruction of the U.S. dollar:

----- Begin Quote -----

"In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75 percent of its foreign exchange reserves currently held in U.S. dollars."

"Since China is the world's second-largest holder of U.S. dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves, it has the power to create a catastrophe. At the same time, Venezuela and Iran are now demanding that all payments for oil shipments be paid for in euros -- not dollars.

"In addition, both nations are planning regional central banking schemes designed to hold all foreign exchange holdings of participating countries in euros instead of dollars. This explains why enemy operators, spearheaded by members of the Saudi royal family, have flooded hundreds of millions of dollars into Venezuelan held bearer-bonds that are used to buy as many banks as possible throughout the Caribbean and South American areas.

"All these factors cannot be coincidence. They reveal a concerted, well-coordinated strategy to destroy America through economics."

----- End Quote -----

Well the plot continues to thicken. Those of you who read the news a lot are probably aware of the fact that in May of last year -- 2006 -- after almost three decades of hostilities, the United States restored full diplomatic ties with the North African nation of Libya. If you are not yet convinced of the arguments I have presented in this article, perhaps this bit of news will push you a little further in my direction. How do you suppose the Bush Administration decided to explain this surprise reversal to the American public? Believe it or not, the U.S. Government's propaganda organ, the mass media, splashed the news that this "wonderful event" had come about as a result of Libya's iron-fisted Islamic dictator, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, who has been in power since 1969, coming to his senses, by renouncing terrorism, and coming over to the "good side".

As you may recall, over the past two decades, Libya has been implicated in a number of terrorist-related activities. In 1986, it was the Berlin discotheque bombing in which two U.S. servicemen died. In 1988, it was the Pan Am Flight 103 attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people perished, 189 of whom were Americans. In 1989, it was a French airliner, UTA Flight 772, in which 171 individuals died in Niger. When Libya refused to acknowledge its crimes, the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions in 1992, and then again in 1993. In 2003, after ten years of sanctions, Libya supposedly had a change of heart, acknowledged its crimes, and agreed to pay almost three billion dollars in compensation. It also said that it was renouncing terrorism.

As I told my mailing list readers last May, I don't believe the media's story for a minute. There may be some elements of truth to the story, but I think the American decision to restore ties with Libya has very little to do with Libya's so-called "good behavior". Qaddafi is a dictator for life, just like his neighbor, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who receives billions of dollars in U.S. aid every year. Qaddafi has been associated with terrorism, which has resulted in hundreds of people losing their lives. Finally, his human rights record is absolutely atrocious. In 2004, the U.S. Department of State listed Libya's human rights record as "poor". In 2005, in its annual report, the Freedom House organization rated political rights in Libya as "7", civil liberties as "7", and gave Libya the freedom rating of "Not Free". Their scale is based upon "1" meaning the most free, and "7" being the least free.

All Middle Eastern dictators, whether it is Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar el-Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, al-Saud dynasty, King Abdullah, or anyone else, treat their citizens the same. If one overly criticizes the government, they may just disappear for life. In spite of this fact, the American Government openly supports some of these leaders, and pays them millions or billions of dollars a year in financial aid to keep their regimes afloat; and then it turns around and proclaims to the world that it is a defender of human rights, and points the finger at other nations.

This concocted impression of America is an absolute lie. As I've stated many times before, America doesn't really care how a foreign leader runs his country, just as long as that leader is pro-American, and is smart enough to do America's bidding. When you don't, you end up like Saddam Hussein at the end of a rope. Earlier I spoke about how over the years, certain stop-gap measures have had to be implemented, in order to keep the U.S. economy from crashing. While I was speaking in economic terms, it is safe to say that in the case of Saddam Hussein, the stop-gap measure they resorted to was a permanent solution. He will never be able to defy the U.S. again. Maybe the Shi'ite executioners pulled the lever, but they did it with the U.S.'s tacit consent, and everyone knows it. As Professor Petrov remarked, what the U.S. has done in Iraq is a warning to other would-be rebels.

What really upsets me, is the politically-correct hypocrisy that we are now seeing in the world press. I am by no means a Saddam Hussein fan; but he sat in solitary confinement for three years, and the world hardly peeped a word. Now that he is dead, suddenly, all of these world leaders are lamenting that he was executed under such questionable conditions, and with such haste. I suspect that many of them are only doing this, because they know that it is what is expected of them by the public. They are just playing their roles.

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.