Loading ...Once Trump realizes this if he loves this country unlike Obama going the other way he would have trouble staying out of the Mid East.
Between the lines you can see that once off the gold standard and a floating currency and oil connection why other currency floating created a demand for outsourcing along with taxes and regs. to compensate for tax loses.
President Richard M. Nixon and his globalist sidekick, Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, knew that their destruction of the international gold standard under the Bretton Woods arrangement would cause a decline in the artificial global demand for the U.S. dollar. Maintaining this “artificial dollar demand” was vital if the United States were to continue expanding its “welfare and warfare” spending.
In a series of meetings, the United States — represented by then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — and the Saudi royal family made a powerful agreement. (Several authors have worked to compile data on the origins of the petrodollar system, some exhaustively, including Richard Duncan, William R. Clark, David E. Spiro, Charles Goyette and F. William Engdahl).
According to the agreement, the United States would offer military protection for Saudi Arabia’s oil fields. The U.S. also agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons, and perhaps most importantly, guaranteed protection from Israel.
The Saudi royal family knew a good deal when they saw one. They were more than happy to accept American weapons and a U.S. guarantee to restrain attacks from neighboring Israel.
Naturally, the Saudis wondered how much all of this U.S. military muscle was going to cost…
What exactly did the United States want in exchange for their weapons and military protection?
The Americans laid out their terms. They were simple and two-fold.
1) The Saudis must agree to price allof their oil sales in U.S. dollars only. (In other words, the Saudis were to refuse all other currencies except the U.S. dollar as payment for their oil exports.)
2) The Saudis would be open to investing their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. debt securities.
You can almost hear one of the Saudi officials in a meeting saying: “Really? That’s all? You don’t want any of our money or our oil? You just want to tell us how to price our oil and then you will give us weapons, military support, and guaranteed protection from our enemy, Israel? You’ve got a deal!”
petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States.
It increases global demand for U.S. dollars
It increases global demand for U.S. debt securities
It gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a currency it can print at will
1. The petrodollar system increases global dollar demand.
Why is consistent global demand for the dollar a benefit? In many ways, currencies are just like any other commodity: the more demand that exists for the currency, the better it is for the producer.
They can print
Interestingly, just five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began ordering his staff to develop plansfor a strike on Iraq — despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence linking the country, or its leader Saddam Hussein, to the 9/11 attacks.
When reports later came in that three of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were connected to Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld reportedly became so determined to find a rationale for an attack on Iraq that “on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11.” The CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/
On September 12, 2001, despite zero evidence against Iraq, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld proposed to President George W. Bush that Iraqshould be “a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism.”
http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/hst341/WPost–InsideWhiteHouse2.htm Bush, along with his other advisors, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, strongly supported the idea that Iraq should be included in their attack plans. Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, urged constraint however, stating that “public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible.”
http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/hst341/WPost–InsideWhiteHouse2.htm
In fairness, however, Washington had already been preparing for a new invasion of Iraq. The Los Angeles Times reported that one year prior to the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. began constructing Al Adid, a billion dollar military base in Qatar with a 15,000-foot runway, in April 2000. What was Washington’s stated justification for the new Al Adid base, and other similar ones in the Gulf region? Preparedness for renewed action against Iraq.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/06/news/mn-20757/2
Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts.
http://ftmdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
It details how Iraq’s oil fields would be carved up and outsourced to Western oil companies two full years before the war. It would later be revealed that an invasion of Iraq was at the top of the Bush administration’s agenda only 10 days after his inauguration, which was a full eight months before 9/11.
The artificial dollar demand created by the petrodollar system has “permitted” Washington to go on multiple spending sprees to further create their “welfare and warfare” state.
One of the most brilliant aspects of the petrodollar system was requesting that oil producing nations take their excess oil profits and place them into U.S. debt securities in Western banks. This system would later become known as “petrodollar recycling” as coined by Henry Kissinger. Through their exclusive use of dollars for oil transactions, and then depositing their excess profits into American debt securities, the petrodollar system is a “dream come true” for a spendthrift government like the United States.
Despite its obvious benefits, the petrodollar recycling process is both unusual and unsustainable. It has served to distort the true demand for government debt that has “permitted” the U.S. government to maintain artificially low interest rates. Washington has become dependent upon these artificially low interest rates and, therefore, have a vested interest in maintaining them through any means necessary. The massive economic distortions and imbalances generated by the petrodollar system will eventually self-correct when the artificial dollar and U.S. debt demand is removed.
That day is coming.
3. The petrodollar system allows the U.S. to buy oil with a currency it can print at will
The third major benefit of the petrodollar system for the U.S. has to do with the actual purchase of oil itself.
Like all modern developed economies, the United States has built most of its infrastructures around the use of petroleum-based energy supplies. And like many nations, the U.S. consumes more oil each year than it can produce on its own. Therefore, it has become dependent upon foreign nations to fill the supply gap. What makes America different, however, is that it can pay for 100% of its oil imports with its own currency.
Israel getting a bad rap
Instead of being a true friend and ally to Israel, I believe that America has cleverly used its “relationship” with the Jewish state as a cover for its military adventurism in the Middle East. (In our next article, I will suggest that most of the military action that America has taken in the Middle East has had more to do with protecting the petrodollar system and less to do with defending Israel.)
Still, many Americans, including most Evangelicals, buy the hype being pumped out of Washington’s political spin rooms. If you turn off the corporate-controlled mainstream media for a day, however, and speak to the real inhabitants of the Middle East, a very different story emerges.
Would a true friend belittle your autonomy and self-determination by denying your right to defend yourself, all because they have made backroom deals with your enemies for financial gain?
Would a true friend seek to make you dependent upon financial aid and then give eight times more financial aid to your sworn enemies?
Yet, this is exactly what America has done to Israel in the name of “friendship.”
When Israel seeks to defend her territory, America always rushes to prevent it.
Have you ever found yourself asking why America, and other Western interests who benefit from continued good relations with oil-producing nations, urge Israel to restrain herself? After all, who are we to intervene in a sovereign nation’s foreign policy decisions?
Again, the truth is found when you follow the money…
As you may recall, part of the petrodollar agreement requires that the United States guarantee protection for Middle Eastern oil-producing nations from the threats specifically imposed by the Jewish state.
When dispensing foreign aid into the Middle East, does America give money exclusively to Israel and her allies? No.
Instead, Israel’s sworn enemies receive eight times more in foreign aid than Israel does.
How can you give free money and weapons to the enemies of your so-called “best friend” and keep a straight face?
While the masses clamor at the feet of those leaders who profess “support for Israel,” I would suggest that they have rarely stopped to ask what that American “support” really looks like?
The Jewish identity, as expressed in Zionism, is one that is deeply rooted in autonomy and self-determination.
It is my belief that America’s so-called “support” for Israel has served as a crafty cover for maintaining a military presence in the region… all to protect our national interests.
America has attempted to play both sides of this Middle East game for far too long. And it has used the corporate-controlled media to control the American public for decades. They have kept us ignorant of the truth.
Keeping the Middle East inflamed and destabilized has been a stated goal of Western interests for decades. This is the name of the game when your goal is empire. And empires do not have friends… they have subjects.
It is time that Americans wake up and realize that we need to stop listening to the flapping jaws of the politicians and to the derelict corporate-controlled media, and instead, we should follow the money.
Maintaining the petrodollar system is the American empire’s primary goal. Everything else is secondary.
The world currently consumes nearly 90 million barrels of oil per day.
According to some projections, global oil demand will reach well over 100 million barrels per day by 2015. And thanks to the petrodollar system, growing global demand for oil leads to an increase in U.S. dollar demand. This artificial demand for U.S. dollars has provided remarkable benefits for the U.S. economy. It has also required the Federal Reserve to keep the dollar in plentiful supply.
By perpetually expanding the U.S. money supply, America’s standard of living increases as well. (If this logic does not make sense, be sure to go back and read Part One of this series.) The problem with this situation is that the only way that it can be sustained is if the demand for the dollar and for U.S. debt securities remains consistently strong.
Grasping this last point is extremely important. For if the artificial global dollar demand, made possible by the petrodollar system, were ever to crumble, foreign nations who had formerly found it beneficial to hold U.S. dollars would suddenly find that they no longer needed the massive number that they were holding. This massive number of dollars, which would no longer be useful to foreign nations, would come rushing back to their place of origin… America.
Obviously, an influx of dollars into the American economy would lead to massive inflationary pressures within our economic system.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this concept as the entire American monetary system hinges on this “dollars for oil” system. Without it, Washington would lose its permission slip to print excessive numbers of dollars.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that America has a vested interest in maintaining the petrodollar system. And, if you are an American citizen, so do you.
So… What Would Happen If The Petrodollar System Ended Tomorrow
Allow me to briefly explain the impact that a sudden loss of the petrodollar system would have upon the United States of America.
Foreign nations would begin sending a flood of U.S. dollars back to the United States in exchange for the new currency needed for oil.
The Federal Reserve would lose their ability to print more dollarsto solve America’s economic problems.
The Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chairman would meet to determine the best course of action.
That action would involve an immediate and dramatic increase in interest rates to reduce America’s money supply.
Hyperinflation would ensuetemporarily while the interest rates took time to take full effect.
All oil-related prices, including gas prices, would reach outrageous levels.
Washington would soon realize that the total amount of money in the system would have to be dramatically slashed even further, leading to an even higher increase in interest rates.
The clueless American public would demand answers. Those on the left would blame the right. The right would blame the left. And both political parties would seek to blame the Federal Reserve.
People with adjustable rate debts would be crushed and massive layoffs would occur as businesses suffered from the high interest rates.
Asset prices across the board would plummet in value.
Amid the financial carnage, an economic recovery eventually would begin to take place. But this new American economy would be tremendously smaller due to a drastically reduced money supply.
The Iraq-Petrodollar Connection
So why Iraq? Why the rush to war with a country that so obviously had no connection with the events of 9/11?
As I write this in the early part of 2012, it is a safe assumption that most Americans carry a suspicion, however slight, toward the reasons that they were told the U.S. needed to invade Iraq back in 2003. It is simply not possible to explain the depths of the corruption that exist at the highest levels of government today. Those who have bought into the mainstream media’s portrayal of the American government as an institution who seeks the common good, they do well to recall the words of America’s own first national leader:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” (President George Washington)
With that quote as a backdrop, let us dig deeper into our original question: Why did the U.S. appear so eager to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq? And why did the U.S. begin hatching these war plans many months prior to the events of September 11?
After all, many other nations around the world have confirmed stockpiles of dangerous weapons. So why did the United States specifically target Iraq so soon after the Afghanistan invasion of 2001?
Did the U.S. have some other motivation for seeking international support to invade Iraq?
William R. Clark was among those who questioned the status quo answers and Washington’s stated motives regarding the invasion of Iraq. In his book, Petrodollar Warfare, Clark claims that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not based upon “violence or terrorism, but something very different, yet not altogether surprising – declining economic power and depleting hydrocarbons.”
Clark’s work was heavily influenced by another author named F. William Engdahl and his book, The Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.
According to research conducted by both Clark and Engdahl, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not exclusively motivated by Iraq’s connection to the terrorist groups who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Nor was it out of concern for the safety of the American public or out of sympathy for the Iraqi people and their lack of freedom or democracy.
Instead, Clark and Engdahl both claimed that the U.S.-led invasion was inspired predominantly by Iraq’s public defiance of the petrodollar system.
According to page 28 of Clark’s book:
“On September 24, 2000, Saddam Hussein allegedly “emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency.”
Not long after this meeting, Saddam Hussein began preparing to make the switch from pricing his country’s oil exports in greenbacks to euros. As renegade and newsworthy as this action was on the part of Iraq, it was sparsely reported in the corporate-controlled media.
Clark comments on the limited media coverage on page 31 of his book:
“CNN ran a very short article on its website on October 30, 2000, but after this one-day news cycle, the issue of Iraq’s switch to a petroeuro essentially disappeared from all five of the corporate-owned media outlets.”
By 2002, Saddam had fully converted to a petroeuro – in essence, dumping the dollar.
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced the commencement of a full scale invasion of Iraq.
According to Clark and Engdahl, Saddam’s bold threat to the petrodollar system had invited the full force and fury of the U.S. military onto his front lawn.
Was the Iraq war really about weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaeda, fighting terrorism, and promoting democracy?
Or was America’s stated purposes to “liberate” the Iraqi people from a brutal regime actually a clever guise for making an example of a nation who dared threaten the existing petrodollar system?
I am not a Washington elite. And I do not claim to know the minds of men. However, the more that you consider all the facts, you will find that the invasion of Iraq was likely one of the first in a series of “petrodollar wars” designed to protect America’s economic interests.
It should be noted that Iraq’s proven oil supplies are considered to be among the largest in the world. Some experts believe that Iraq’s oilfields, many of which have yet to be exploited, will catapult Iraq above Saudi Arabia in total proven oil reserves in the coming years.
What’s “Our” Oil Doing Under “Their” Sand?
Washington, of course, adamantly denied any and all accusations that the Iraq war was motivated by anything other than disarming Iraq and liberating its beleagered people. According to the Washington elites, the Iraq war was not, nor was it ever, about Iraqi’s oil supplies.
Consider a small sampling of quotes from U.S. officials:
“The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a wrong impression. I have a deep desire for peace. That’s what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don’t like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody.”
(U.S. President George W. Bush)
“This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations.”
(U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell)
“It’s not about oil and it’s not about religion.”
(U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld)
“I have heard that allegation (of oil motives) and I simply reject it.”
(Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer)
“It’s not about oil.”
(General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command)
“It was not about oil.”
(Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham)
“It’s not about the oil.”
(the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.)
“This is not about oil.”
(Australian Treasurer Peter Costello)
“The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil.”
(Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger)
“This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security.”
(Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary)
“This is not about oil. That was very clear. This is about America, and America’s position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed.”
(Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett)
“There’s just nothing to it.”
(White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields.)
Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, “if Saddam’s primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation,” said:
“This cannot be further from the truth. He is a threat to his neighbors. He’s a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind.” She continued: “This is not about oil.”
The government line was loud and clear: The Iraq war was not about oil.
Or… Is it About the Oil?
Despite the adamant denial by the Washington elites that their intentions were anything but pure, it did not take long for dissenters to emerge. Anti-war demonstrations filled the public squares of nearly every American town.
Interestingly, as the war with Iraq raged on, even those within Washington began to make revealing comments on the U.S.-Iraq-Oil connection.
In January 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that oil was a key priority to the West’s involvement in Iraq, even more so than the supposed “weapons of mass destruction.”
In June 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the following comments after being asked why Iraq was being treated differently than North Korea on the question of a nuclear threat, while speaking to an Asian security summit in Singapore: