Impending Doom Here's an article that I recieved through my Journey To Forever Biofuel Mailing List.


Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

"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

By William R. Clark

08/08/05 "MM" -- -- 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
Saddam.[1][2] 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").[3] 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 Union.

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 on
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.[4] 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. [5]

The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite
the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil sales.[6] (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.[7] 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 Newsweek reported:

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. [8]

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.[9] 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. [10]

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 U.S.:

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. [11]

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."[12] 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 hegemony 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 cost.

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 are U.S.
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
these trades was still denominated in the dollar.[13]

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 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 credit via U.S. Treasury bills, and the
dollar's 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.
[emphasis added]

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. [14]

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.[15] He stated this would be based on (1) if
and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (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 were successful. 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.[16]
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. [17] [18] China's announcement in July 2005 that is
was re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not nearly as important as its
decision to divorce itself form a U.S. dollar peg by moving towards a
"basket of currencies" - likely to include the yen, euro, and
dollar.[19] 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.) [20] 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 Authority (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 China. 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 U.S. desires to
enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks of an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis
between Washington and Beijing.

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.[22] 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 at all. [21]

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 facilities:

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. [23]

Synopsis:

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-played 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 a 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 trades.

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 in a major terrorist
attack. A unilateral U.S. 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 or Russia to
move towards a petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S.
economy and its global military presence. I refer to this in my book
as the "rogue nation hypothesis."

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 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 Gulf. 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
continual warfare.
-- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Footnotes:

[1]. Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White
House, and the Education of Paul O' Neill, Simon & Schuster
publishers (2004)

[2]. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on
Terror, Free Press (2004)

[3]. 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)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[4]. Peter Philips, Censored 2004, The Top 25 Censored News Stories,
Seven Stories Press, (2003) General website for Project Censored:
http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

[5]. Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the
international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003

[6]. Faisal Islam, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for
euro," [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html

[7]. "Oil bourse closer to reality," IranMania.com, December 28,
2004. Also see: "Iran oil bourse wins authorization," Tehran Times,
July 26, 2005

[8]. "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a
pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[9]. James Fallows, 'Will Iran be Next?,' Atlantic Monthly, December
2004, pgs. 97 - 110

[10]. Seymour Hersh, "The Coming Wars," The New Yorker, January 24th
- 31st issue, 2005, pgs. 40-47 Posted online January 17, 2005.
Online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[11]. Philip Giraldi, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," American
Conservative, August 1, 2005

[12]. Dafina Linzer, "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S.
Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements,"
Washington Post, August 2, 2005; Page A01

[13]. C. Shivkumar, "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms,"
The Hindu Business Line (June 16, ` 2003).
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/
2003061702380500.htm

[14]. Terry Macalister, "Iran takes on west's control of oil
trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html

[15]. "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)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

[16]. "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters,
October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

[17]. "Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP,
June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm

[18]. "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business
Weekly, May 8, 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm

[19]. Richard S. Appel, "The Repercussions from the Yuan's
Revaluation," kitco.com, July 27, 2005
http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html

[20]. China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,' China Daily, October
31, 2004. Online: Online:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

[21]. "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have
terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June
11, 2004
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World

[22]. Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

[23]. 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)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

by courtesy & ? 2005 William R. Clark  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 6:58 PM