Facts and lies about the climate:
The secrets behind money:
The secrets behind the euro:
Farewell to growth:
The secrets behind the war in Iraq:
The secrets behind the war in Afghanistan:
The secrets behind the accusations against Iran:
Farewell to growth:
The secrets behind the war in Iraq:
The secrets behind the war in Afghanistan:
The secrets behind the accusations against Iran:
US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
by Rudo de Ruijter,
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
- Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
- Iran’s nuclear history
- From shah Reza to Khomeini
Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
US President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear weapons. Well, we remember, in 2002 he accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts.
Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the very beginning in 1968. The NPT is a treaty not only to stop proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help develop civil nuclear energy.  In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and Engfar, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NPT’s watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s agreement with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. 
Iran’s nuclear history
At that time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to develop nuclear energy in Iran.  The US offered everything he wanted: a research reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was started in 1967, but had critical problems soon after. Then the French became good friends too. They promised to repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered their services to the shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel from France, two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian students went to the UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year, and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor completed, the shah ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the shah’s blood shedding oppression rose to a climax.
From shah Reza to Khomeini
The opposition against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup of the CIA, the English and the shah.  Mossadeq had successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case at the International Court in The Hague.  During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the protests of the population. In 1960, to please his American friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was jailed. Recidivist a few years later he was expelled. The shah’s oppression continued to increase over time. In riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By 1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January 1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A long hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them failed. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three days. However, the war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
In the first year of the war, on June 7 1981, Israel bombed the nearly completed nuclear power plant of Osirak, in Iraq.  Israel disposes of nuclear weapons and is not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Many countries feel threatened by the Israelian nuclear arsenal.
With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the US attitude toward Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’ enemies now. However, with respectively 10.5 and 10 percent of world’s oil reserves, it was unlikely the US would just ignore them. The US remains world’s largest oil consumer with 25 percent of world’s oil consumption. Today it has less than 2 percent of world’s oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly increasing and, according to Bush, it was 60 percent in May 2006. 
The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium
On June 16 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that Iran had not reported an import of uranium in 1991 and its subsequent stocking and processing. That is true. But from a confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, it contained just 130 gram of uranium.  According to article 37 of the official agreement between the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are exempted from the IAEA safeguards.  The IAEA accusations made the world believe that Iran had violated the rules.
Similar jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was not willing to grant more rights to the UN inspectors, the IAEA developed additional rules to make controls easier. The new rules also made it easier to discriminate among members: excessive rules for one country, friendly rules for others.
In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear what they had to offer. This is not so surprising. The EU is Iran's principal trading partner, with 36% of Iran's exports going to the EU and roughly 40% of EU imports coming from Iran.   Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it weakens the dollar.
During the talks about new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program for uranium enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for extended checking of their nuclear facilities. However, after repeated Iranian requests it became clear, that the E3 countries had no intention of following through on the incentives they had promised. They just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely, meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. So, Iran resumed the program it had voluntarily suspended and re-established the contractual conditions for the IAEA controls. This resulted in the attempt by the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran.
US’ usual agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
So, if the so-called proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With its excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, (for the UNOCAL pipeline projects), also in Afghanistan. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were useful US’ allies, but those days are over. Thanks to Bush we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in Iran, a spontaneous uprising of a pro-US government is not likely to happen soon.The second thing that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance against Iran is their part in the weakening dollar. At a glance, this is how it works. Nearly all oil and gas on the globe is sold in dollars. The first advantage is that the US can always dispose freely of gas and oil. If necessary, it can simply “print” the needed dollars.  The second advantage is that foreign countries need dollars. Since 1971 the US has enjoyed the advantage of being the petrodollar supplier to the world. Supplying dollars to foreign countries means, the US can create dollars and purchase goods, services and investments with it. Since the foreigners need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international trade outside the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return. Merely supplying money means free shopping. This way, the US imports twice as much goods as it exports. For each second container it imports, nothing is delivered in return.  The amount is simply added to the foreign debt. According to the Federal Reserve, US’ net foreign debt was 2,500,000,000,000 dollars in December 2007.  If at some point the world starts selling the trillions of dollars they currently hold, the exchange markets would be flooded with dollars, and, as a result, the value of the dollar would drop to next to nothing. It would trigger a financial crisis, but if the dollar becomes worth next to nothing, it also means the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad. And that is the case as long as the world needs dollars to buy oil and gas.
However, with US’ sky rocketing debt, the dollar is vulnerable. When Iraq, that disposes of the second largest oil reserves in the world, switched to the euro on 6 November 2000   , it set in motion a long descent of the dollar rate.  Other countries had plans to break away from the dollar too. , On 4 July 2002 the situation had become that serious, that the IMF warned over a possible dollar collapse.  Three weeks later the plans for the invasion of Iraq were discussed at Downing Street (London).  On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."  By the end of 2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18 percent. On March 20 2003 the US overruled the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq. They switched back the Iraqi oil trade into dollars on June 6 2003.  But from spring 2003 Iran had also switched to the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate lost another 12 percent.
The US free shopping advantage (import more than export) only works as far as foreign countries need additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices increase on the US controlled IPE and NYMEX, more dollars are needed in the world.  As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place outside the US, for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars are needed outside and result in free shopping.
To increase the foreign dollar demand still more, the US treasury sells Treasury Securities to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This lowers the offer on the exchange markets and makes the dollar rate rise. To avoid the exchange rate to rise continually new dollars have to be “delivered” to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US wants to lower the dollar rate, it can just import more. In fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can decide itself about the rate of their currency and enjoy free shopping. For the sole year 2004 the latter represented an advantage of, in average, $ 2,167 per US’ inhabitant.
When countries break away from the dollar, the dollars related to their trade normally become superfluous and overflow the exchange markets, resulting in lowering dollar rates. When these dollars cannot be mopped up in time, the dollar may collapse. A logical, but somewhat obscure solution is to pray that the oil prices rise at the IPE and NYMEX, in order to pump the dollars back into the oil trade again. To absorb the dollars of the Iranian oil and gas trade, and to sell extra dollars to finance Bush’ warfare, the oil prices would have to increase substantially. Well, the prayers of the Treasury have been heard. Between May 2003 and September 2005 the oil prices almost tripled. 
The Iranian Oil Bourse
It was in this situation, that Iran was to open a new Oil Bourse, independent from IPE and NYMEX.  It had been announced since several years  and the opening had been scheduled for 20 March 2006, the Iranian New Year. Assuming it would succeed in creating enough trade to establish a recognized world oil price, and assuming they would keep the price stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX would not be able to rise freely anymore. The credit merry-go-round may stop and that would trip up US’ hegemony. Towards March 2006 tensions rose high again, although, officially it was about the alleged Iranian plans for nuclear weapons and not about the Oil Bourse. On March 20 the Bourse did not open. In April it was announced for May.  But in May, President Putin announced that Russia would start a rouble denominated oil bourse.   Less than one month later, on 8 June 2006 the Russian bourse (RTS) was ready and started trading.    Because Russia has a much bigger share in world’s oil exports ,, it took away the interest of the Iranian Bourse. In February 2008 the Iranian Bourse finally opened for oil related products, but still not for crude oil yet.
In its conflict with Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for sharing the cost of military operations and to clean up the mess, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before allies fight along, they generally want the enemy to be condemned by a resolution of the UN-Security Council. The problem for such a resolution is, that members with veto-right must not vote against it. So the US should not get opposition of France, the United Kingdom, Russia or China. If the US would tell, that they want the might over the Iranian oil and gas reserves and switch back the trade into dollars, they would not have a chance. So, they have to come up with something, that would get the veto-countries on their side. Well, veto-countries are the victor states of the Second World War. They happen to have in common to be nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities. So, how about a project to reward them with the exclusive rights for uranium enrichment and for the supply of all nuclear fuel to all non-nuclear-weapon states? 
The strange European delegation
Then, in the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, the UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3, join Bush. They would represent the European Union. This strange composition of an EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that these countries are the European countries possessing enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag of the European Union, they have their own special interest in uranium enrichment and reprocessing.
How European are these E3 countries? It is very strange, of course, that this E3, on behalf of European Union, tries to get Europe’s interesting trading partner Iran condemned by the UN Security Council. It indicates they are playing poker for high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting their trade relations with Iran and therewith the oil supply priced in euros. Because US’ final goal is to have might in Iran, Bush wants a trade embargo and for the moment “Europe” kindly goes along with the first steps. A trade embargo can be a redoubtable weapon to weaken a country, like the UN-embargo against Iraq between 1991 and 2003, during which nearly two million Iraqi people starve.
Bush would probably not mind, if the Iranian power plants under construction were bombed, like Israel had done with the Iraqi nuclear power plants in 1981. Then Iran would have to consume its oil, instead of selling it in euros.
And what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Of course it has its own interest in the nuclear fuel market, but with its London based IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis with the NYMEX in New York, and its subsequent inability to adopt the euro, the UK is, first of all, the messenger-boy of the White House, as usual.
The tone of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally expect between trade partners who wish to improve their relations. The reports about the discussions are long litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose on Iran. Iran is treated like a naughty child, who will have to obey one way or the other.  In January 2006, French President Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear attack. Threatening with the use of nuclear arms is in breech with the Non Proliferation Treaty and, of course, such an attitude can only be counter-productive.
Russia and China
To reach a Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention against Iran.
Russia still has large reserves of oil gas and coal. Since the catastrophe in Chernobyl in 1986 it has not build any new reactors. (This is changing soon now.) Russia does not want a new US' invasion in its back yard.
China has good relations with Iran and contracts for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants to let Iran down, it would have to look for alternative solutions for their high needs of energy. China does not seem to share the aggressive stance of the US and the E3.
Why does Iran want nuclear energy?
It may seem strange, that a country disposing of oil, wants nuclear energy. Iran exports oil, but imports refined oil products.  These are needed for lighting, heating, transport and industry of its growing population. For many Iranians the real price of these products would be too high. That is why they are sold cheap, with losses for the Iranian treasury. The switch to electricity should provide affordable energy for the whole country. Iran needs the revenues from its oil exports to pay for the import of many other products it needs. That is the reason why Iran does not want to consume its oil itself.
Is enrichment in countries without nuclear weapons dangerous?
Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3 percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing process. Risks in the enrichment process are those of the chemical industries and not so much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent.  If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’ contention that enrichment should remain in the hands of world’s nuclear-weapon states.
Birth of a new world order
The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the successful misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had created the ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea appeared in a UN brochure in 2004.  Then it was still in the form of a call for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February 2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) . Already in April 2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s mission to the UN put the question, “if the MNA would not unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear activities in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT obligations.” 
On February 6 2006 the US’ Department of Energy announced its version of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea of IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.  And, of course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So, a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows: “Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the world with clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle nations commercially competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling technologies. “ 
The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol we should not count on equal rights or fair relations.
Within the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have enrichment facilities today.  The rest of the NPT countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren’t these the countries that promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As we know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse, France has even developed a new generation of nuclear weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and progressive. In 2006, France and the US were still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world. And now, non-nuclear-weapon states should give away more rights and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel suppliers?
To seduce non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment facilities would have about twice the capacity the world needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment facilities, a better use could be made of the existing capacities. This would enable lower prices for enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding their production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany.  They strive for more market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no new competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.
The new plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy construction, since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman in the system. I do not think it is wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and integer government that would be able to guarantee their policemen’s impartiality.
The plans for the distribution system recommend minimal national stocks and joint regional buffers in different host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of minimal stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot produce any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear there is only one plausible answer: to keep the non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of power for our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what is needed for their inspections. This is pure power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If a nation does anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want, the fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate submission. It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying countries will never be affected. They produce their own fuel.
In theory the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization. But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions and conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s independence from parties’ national interests is constantly under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure Iraq could be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the obligation to keep all sensitive information from their investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly received sensitive information, with which they prepared the invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply overruled the UN’s Security Council…) Today, we see the same US’ influences in the IAEA’s investigations in Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick.
The rules for the new world order are presented as “an idea of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”. I presume that both plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach (MNA) and Bush’ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a final version dictated by the US.
Of course, getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic coup. But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market will be completely regulated. All producers cooperate in the same organizations and all of them will be interested in the highest possible earnings. Together they will set world’s nuclear fuel price. Just like today’s world’s oil prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear fuel prices will be decided by the happy few.
Now comes the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the customers have to pay? These currencies will become the most needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare it to today’s US-dollar.
Apparently these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese yuan renminbi, Russian roubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There will probably be some preferential order due to each supplier’s capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these countries will know the advantages of the supply of their currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long run, each of them will also experience the negative effects on their economies and, after decades, let their currency collapse to get rid of the sky-rocketing foreign debt. In short, this is what can happen when each supplier demands payment in its own currency.
However, the fact that the plan mentions, that the IAEA should become the intermediary between suppliers and customers, may indicate that the IAEA will decide in which currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony will be assured for many decades to come.
The UN theatre
With the project for a new world order prepared discretely in the background, we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on a prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium.
Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before such a resolution is successfully voted. For, if Iran leaves the treaty before, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore. Countries outside the Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and Brazil are free to enrich uranium and to do what they want.
The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China? In May 2007 the US, Russia, China, France and Japan met to explore the possibilities for co-operation for the suggested international nuclear fuel banks… 
In the event, that such a raid by the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave. The result may be opposite to the purpose of this treaty.
15 September 2008
Update September 2009:
7 April 2009: Meeting GNEP steering group. 
6 May 2009: Washington negotiator calls on Israel to sign nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty 
18 September 2009 UN body urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection 
21 September 2009 Tehran informs IAEA that it is building a new uranium enrichment site. 
25 September 2009 Western media and politicians do their best to present it as a secret site [Too many sources]
References and sources:
 NPT members:
 NPT text:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTEnglish_Text.pdf (See article IV)
 Agreement IAEA-Iran:
 Iran’s nuclear history:
 Growing opposition against the shah:
 Israelian attack on Irakian power plant in 1981:
 60 percent dependency on oil imports:
 130 gram of uranium:
 article 37 of IAEA’s agreement with Iran:
 40 percent of EU imports come frome Iran
 EU imports from Iran consist for 90 percent of energy
 To print money is just an expression. Today, over 95 percent of all money in the world simply consists
of numbers on bank-accounts.
 US balance of payments and trade 2007
 US net foreign debt 2007
 Fred Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the euro:
 Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:
 Descent of the dollar rate
 Colin Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro:
 IMF warning over dollar collapse 4 July 2002:
 Downing Street Memo 23 July 2002
 Cheney’s lie 26 August 2002
 Financial Times, June 5th 2003
 More dollars needed
 Oil spot prices 1997 – 2008
 How can the dollar collapse in Iran?
 Oil Bourse Iran article September 2004
 Announcement Iranian Oil Bourse 26 April 2006:
 RTS Putin announces Russian Oil Bourse 10 May 2006:
 RTS announcement 11 May 2006:
 RTS will start in 2007 22 May 2006:
 RTS will start 8 June 2006:
 RTS first oil trade 8 June 2006: 1751 rubles ($ 65.20)
 World Oil Exports
 Iranian imports 400,000 bbl/d of gasoline
http://www.gnep.energy.gov (Note: The content is different now from that in May 2006.)
 IAEA E3 report:
 Uranium enrichment:
 UN brochure 2004:
 MNA expert group February 2005:
 Kenzo Oshima: MNA unduly affects peaceful use?
 ElBaradei’s idea and Bush’ proposal. February 7, 2006:
 DOE compliments February 2006
 Map of world’s nuclear fuel stations, uranium enrichment capacity:
 Uranium Enrichment and Fuel Fabrication
 US, Russia, China, France, Japan
 6 May 2009: Washington negotiator calls on Israel to sign nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
 18 September 2009 UN body urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection
 21 September 2009 Tehran informs IAEA that it is building a new uranium enrichment site.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil
by William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005)
Killing the dollar in Iran, By Toni Straka
America's Foreign Owners, Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D., January 17, 2006
Trading oil in euros - does it matter?,
by Cóilín Nunan,
Published on 30 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
* May 2006 / Last updated 15 September 2008
For reactions and reply you can contact the author via www.courtfool.info .
If you wish, you may copy this article and forward it or publish it in newspapers and on websites.
Should more people read this article?
On the internet the readers have the power! They decide which information goes around the globe! You may not be aware of it, but if each reader sends a link to 3 other interested persons, it only takes 20 steps to join 3,486,784,401 people! You want to see it happen? Use your power!3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 3,486,784,401
If you don't want to miss the next publication, then click here:
And you know something is happening
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
Restrictions to grow beyond the country's borders would endanger the banks sooner or later. This was well understood by Pierre Werner, banker and prime minister of Luxembourg, who presented the first blue print for the common currency in 1970.
Already at that time, prominent economists had warned that because of the big economic differences this would lead to severe indebtment of the weaker countries. These problems were easy to predict. But debts mean extra income for the bankers. So the euro came and with it the problems.
Many euro-countries have severe financial problems by now. Many people still don't understand that the euro is not the solution, but the cause.
The problem? Because of the big differences between euro-countries the cost prices of products differ too. With the open borders, consumers prefer products from less expensive euro-countries. As a result, their local economy fails. At the same time, the euros leave the country as payment for the import-products. To continue to dispose of euros citizens and government must borrow more and more.. The country is trapped in growing debts...
Consecutively the banks raise the interest for the local government in such a way, it can only obtain further loans from the Troika (International Monetary Funds, European Central Bank, European Commission.)
To supply these loans, the Troika demands Draconic budget cuts. Public officers are fired, services come to a standstill, social achievements are broken down. The people are taught they would be still worse off without the euro. Also, all lucrative possessions of the country must be sold to foreign parties to lower the debt. A man of Goldman Sachs is appointed as governor.
Financiers earn billions of
interest with these mountains of debt. To prevent that they risk losses because
of impayments, the ESM-bank has been set up. (ESM stands for
European Stability Mechanisme) The
ESM may grab as much tax money as it wants from the treasuries of the eurocountries
to make good the losses of the lenders, freely, without any democratic control and without limit.
The ministers of finance appoint themselves as governors of the ESM. (Signature of the first version of the ESM-treaty, 11 July 2011. By the way, this signature was illegal, because the Convention of Vienna, that sets the rules for treaties, does not mention ministers of finance as legal representatives of countries.)
Apparently because the US was not satisfied with this first version, it disappeared in the trash bin a few days later. A second version came on 2 February 2012, this time it was signed by EU-ambassadors. The treaty, however, is not a EU-treaty, but an international treaty. (The EU has not the right to extend its own competences and the ESM limits the competences of the national parliaments.) The rules of the EU don't apply to the ESM and the ESM doesn't have to justify its actions to anyone. No democratic control on the use of our tax money has been foreseen.
Unbelievable but true, the treaty has been ratified by the parliaments and senats of the 17 euro-countries.
This means that in each country a majority (and in some countries even a 2/3 majority) has voted in favor of the treaty. Curiously, that does not mean that those who voted in favor have read the text. At least, those of whom I have read comments in the press had, apparently, read a few lines, without understanding what the treaty was about. We should rather fear that hardly any representative has read the text, because for them, studying the text would have been a waste of time. Whatever the content, they have to vote the way they are ordered to by the leader of their political party. That is the way things go when coalitions are in power.
What we can conclude is that the lobby of the bankers and the europhiles have
succeeded to convince enough leaders of political parties - a few persons in
each country - to make a majority of
representatives vote in favor of the treaty.
They voted in favor of the bankers, not for the people.
Barroso, president of the European Commission from 2004 to 2014.
It is the European Commission that, according to Barroso, should be the economic government of the Union, which defines the actions that national governments must carry out. (28.09.11)
Special thanks to:
Christine, Corinne, Francisco, Evelyne, Françoise, Gaël, Peter, Ingrid, Ivan, Krister, Jorge, Marie Carmen, Ruurd, Sabine, Lisa, Sarah, Valérie & Anonymous...
Acknowledgements for translations:
Come Don Chisciotte
Ermanno di Miceli
Manuel Valente Lopes
Traducteur sans frontière
Do you want to translate too?
Information stops at the linguistic borders. If you speak more than one language, please help the articles cross these borders.
Rudo de Ruijter