US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
by Rudo de Ruijter,
15 September 2008*
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
- Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
- Iran’s nuclear history
- From shah Reza to Khomeini
- The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of uranium
- US’ usual agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
- The Iranian Oil Bourse
- Seeking allies
- The strange European delegation
- Russia and China
- Why does Iran want nuclear energy?
- Is enrichment in countries without nuclear weapons dangerous?
- Birth of a new world order
- Questionable elements
- The UN theatre
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
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
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
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
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’
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
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.
Update September 2009
April 2009: Meeting GNEP steering group. 
6 May 2009: Washington
negotiator calls on Israel to sign nuclear Non Proliferation
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:
 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
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r16004.htm (Item 14)
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
, page 9
 US net foreign debt 2007
 Fred Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to
 Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:
Descent of the dollar rate
(last chart) &
 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,
 DOE compliments February 2006
 Map of world’s nuclear fuel stations, uranium enrichment
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
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