Iran in the Crosshairs

“This is a very long article but one worth reading if you want to understand what is going on in the Middle East. Like the British Empire of old, the USA is playing the "Grand Game".


The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

by William Clark

www.globalresearch.ca 27 October 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.
In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.
Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.
Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]
Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.
"Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries"…"Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran."
"…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level." [3]
To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]
Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:
"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange."
"…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way."
"…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.
The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]
It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.
"The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in."
"….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations."
"While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact." [6]
Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.
"Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.
He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." [7]
(Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.
"Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."
"Others familiar with Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."
"…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]
One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades
During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).
The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).
The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.
"The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."
"…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."
"….If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."
"There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all." [13]
It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.
Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.
A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.
"NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]
Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:
"Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."
"…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. " [17]
Synopsis
Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.
This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.
Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
- Abraham Lincoln
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
- Thomas Jefferson

References:
[1] "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm
[3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
[4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
[5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
[6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789
[7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588
[8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com
[9] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," ibid.
[10] "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
[12] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
[13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
[15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html
[16] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.
[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
[18] Philips, Peter, "Censored 2004," Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
William Clark is the author of an award-winning essay published online in early 2003 entitled: 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth.’
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html , also published by Global Research at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA302A.html This essay received a 2003 ‘Project Censored’ award, and was published in the book, Censored 2004) [18] This pre-war essay hypothesized that Saddam sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s oil-for-food program, and switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export transaction currency.

Note: Below is a description of this author’s upcoming book: (Available spring 2005.)
Petrodollar Warfare
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
William Clark
The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched its oil transaction currency to euros -- rather than U.S. dollars -- the Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.

Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar hegemony and the unsustainable macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling,' pointing out that the issues underlying the Iraq war also apply to geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and other countries including the European Union (E.U.), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without changing course, the American Experiment will end the way all empires end - with military over-extension and subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to create a more balanced global energy and monetary system thereby reducing the possibility of future oil-depletion and oil currency-related warfare.

A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism, Petrodollar Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global political economy.

Email this article to a friend
To become a Member of Global Research
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright WILLIAM CLARK, CRG 2004.

www.globalresearch.ca”

“I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.... Looking back on it, I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.

- Smedley Darlington Butler, U.S. Marine Corps Major General 1935.
Butler won America's highest military award for bravery the Congressional Medal of Honor twice.”

“"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

-George W. Bush”

“... or something like that.

Interesting analysis. Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn.”

“War Is A Racket, eh Smedley?”

“love that W "The Who" quote.”

“Is that a real George W. Bush quote?”

“I heard him say it on tape... if you can believe that these days.”

“Yes, it is a real Bushism.”

“TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian woman has requested a divorce from her husband on the grounds that he has not washed for more than a year.

"My husband says he does not like water and does not want to take a shower ... He doesn't even wash his face when he wakes up in the morning," Mina, 36, was quoted as saying in court by the state-run Iran newspaper.

When the couple first married eight years ago her husband was obsessively clean, she said.

"He spent hours taking showers three times a day and washed his hands every few minutes," Mina said. "But he suddenly changed ... Now nobody, including me, my children and his colleagues, can stand him."”

“Man, I haven't bathed in 5 days. I wonder what I smell like?”

“And this has what to do with Iran selling its oil in Euros?

Trolling this morning Nigal? :)”

“That Bush quote is my startup wav on my home computer.”

“In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html”

“http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-fornpoll27jan27,0,5918171.story?coll=la-news-a_section

57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists

The war has not diminished Americans' support for military action against Iraq's neighbor if nuclear pursuits aren't dropped.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran's Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

[snip]”

“Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave about now.”

“I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free......”

“Is it too late to put the Shah back in power?”

“We should just let Israel do to Iran what they did to Iraq in 81, it worked better than anyone expected.”

“"let" may be too strong a word, how about stand idly by while Israel does what best for its own protection.”

“I heard on TV that Iran hid it weapons program underground so it can't be taken out entirely by air strikes. It might be tougher this time for Israel have success from the air.”

“That would make sense RichB, however,unencumbered Israel could/would find a way regardless of obstacles.”

“I hope that 57% sign up for duty b/c methinks we are a leeeeeeetle stretched right now, no?”

“Probably, but I think it could get ugly in a hurry if they had to put soldiers on the ground to dig out weapons. This whole thing might get ugly from any angle.”

“I really think Iran is posturing b/c we can't do sheeite.”

“RichB, I agree it would be a mess. Lots of uncertainties coming up...”

“Might get ugly? Those damn elections.”

“Interesting that I missed this article last week. Of course, the reason is that the Dhimmicrats didn't make a peep about it, because it wasn't Bush's doing. Still, this is an interesting development:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1408706,curpg-2.cms

Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran


[ Thursday, February 09, 2006 09:57:52 pmIANS ]


MOSCOW: Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said on Thursday that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks.

"We concluded a contract for the supply of air-defence systems to Iran and there is no reason not to fulfil it," Mikhail Dmitriyev, the head of Russia's military-technical cooperation agency, said.

Worth an estimated $700 million, the deal for up to 30 Tor M-1 surface-to-air missiles is the largest since Russia in 2000 withdrew from an agreement with the US restricting the supply of military hardware to Iran.

Dmitriyev rejected media reports that talks were underway for the additional supply of heavier S-300 air-defence missiles.

Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has stressed that the Tor is a defensive system and that the sale does not violate Russia's international obligations.

The weapon is effective against aircraft, cruise missiles and guided bombs. There was no indication when the systems would be shipped to Iran.

The missiles are expected to be deployed at the nuclear research centre at Isfahan and the reactor that Russia is completing for Iran at the southern port of Bushehr.

According to Dmitriyev, Russia's overall exports of arms in 2005 were worth a record $6.1 billion. The sales target for 2006 is $7 billion, he added.

The main customers for Russian military hardware are China and India.”

“More on Iran from Stratfor. The situation just keeps getting more convoluted:

Iran: Pushing the Limits on Nuclear Power
February 13, 2006 20 59 GMT

Summary

Iran on Feb. 13 postponed a meeting with Russia on Moscow's proposal
to enrich uranium for the Islamic republic, and announced that it
would soon resume industrial-scale enrichment. Tehran also hinted it
would pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if forced on
the issue. Emboldened by the sphere of influence it has gained in
Baghdad, Iran is pushing to gain concessions on the nuclear front.
While the Iranians will tread carefully so as not to provoke a U.S.
or Israeli military strike, their moves have increased the
probability of such pre-emptive operations.

Analysis

In a series of direct statements, hints and backdoor diplomatic
comments Feb. 13, the Iranian government pushed its nuclear power
agenda further than it has in quite some time. Although its steps are
calculated to move the issue slowly, Tehran just increased the
chances of a pre-emptive U.S. or Israeli strike.

The Iranian government said Feb. 13 that it has postponed a meeting
with Russian negotiators to discuss Moscow's proposal to enrich
uranium for Tehran in Russia. Government spokesman Gholamhossein
Elham said the Feb. 16 meeting had been called off because of the
"new situation" and that it would be held at a time of "mutual
agreement." Elham also said that Tehran would not wait for the March
6 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of
governors to resume industrial-scale enrichment.

Moreover, Elham hinted that Iran could pull out of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) should the international community fail
to recognize Iran's rights as a signatory to the treaty. Meanwhile,
Russia said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would meet with EU leaders
in Vienna, Austria, this week to discuss the Iranian nuclear program.
Finally, unnamed diplomats reportedly told Agence France-Presse that
the Iranians had begun enriching uranium by feeding uranium
hexafluoride gas into centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility.
Tehran has not restarted the entire 164-centrifuge cascade, but began
preliminary work with stand-alone centrifuges "over the past two or
three days," one diplomat reportedly said.

Knowing now that the Shia will not dominate in Iraq -- and will have
to make do with being the largest political force in the country --
the Islamic republic is starting to leverage its position in Iraq to
move ahead on the nuclear issue. As Iran sees it, gaining a sphere of
influence in Iraq and acquiring nuclear technology are the two ways
it can emerge as a major player on the regional and international scene.

Although Tehran will meticulously calibrate its steps on the nuclear
issue, the probability of a pre-emptive military strike against its
nuclear assets has just increased.

The Iranians recognize their slim chance of taking a direct route to
the nuclear finish line without being bombed by either Israel or the
United States. Even with untrustworthy intelligence, neither side is
willing to allow Tehran to come close to getting its hands on a
nuclear weapon. Iran, therefore, has taken a dual approach in an
attempt to tip-toe to the finish line: Push ahead on the nuclear
issue as a bargaining chip to gain international attention, while
slowly trying to reverse all the restrictions placed upon it by the
IAEA since 2003. All this ostensibly would be accomplished while
remaining within the legal NPT framework -- even though Tehran has
threatened to pull out of the treaty if forced into a corner.

Tehran is emboldened to move in this direction by the fact that it
has a comfortable position in Iraq. While the Iranians have been
using the nuclear issue to help secure their position in Iraq, they
always have known that there are limits to what they can hope to
achieve in Iraq. Iran's clerical regime knew that Iraq would not be
Tehran's puppet because the Sunnis and the Kurds would never go
quietly into the night. The regime also kept an eye on Washington's
efforts to contain Shiite power under the new political system.

Essentially, the Iranians had an upper and lower threshold on what
they could realistically hope to achieve in Iraq. The best-case
scenario for them would have been for the Sunnis and Kurds to accept
some concessions in return for Shiite domination. The insurgency and
the Kurdish demands for autonomy, however, quashed that hope. The
minimum acceptable situation for Tehran was to have a pro-Iranian
Shi'i lead a coalition government, thus giving the Iranians some
modicum of influence. The reality, in the wake of the elections and
the nomination of a Shiite prime minister, is closer to the latter
scenario, but is certainly better than having a hostile regime in
power in Baghdad -- as was the case before the U.S. invasion.

Boosted by this gain, then, the Iranians are pushing ahead on the
nuclear front. On this issue, they also have a set of minimum and
maximum expectations. For now, they hope to come to point where they
can use it to enhance their position internationally, especially
within the global Islamist community. Should they achieve this, they
will try to hit the next goal of becoming a nuclear power -- provided
they can avoid U.S. or Israeli attacks. The problem for Iran,
however, is that the longer it remains on the nuclear-power path --
on tip-toe or otherwise -- the better its chances of being bombed.”

“Iran’s Leader, Ahmadinejad, Calls on Nations to “Remove Israel”
16:49 Feb 12, '06 / 14 Shevat 5766
By Scott Shiloh

At a rally in Teheran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the revolution that created the Islamic republic, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his call for Israel’s destruction.


"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago, and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said.

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," proclaimed Ahamdinejad to a crowd of hundreds of thousands of Iranians, according to state media.

Once again, the Iranian president called the Holocaust “a fairy tale” and accused European nations of being held hostage by “Zionists” in Israel. He said “neutral scholars” should be allowed to investigate in Europe and report on “the truth about the fairy tale of the Holocaust.”

Ahamadinejad compared the Holocaust to the caricatures of Mohammed that ignited a wave of violent protests around the Islamic world. "Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said. The cartoons, he said, were part of a “Zionist plot.”

“We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists,” he expounded.

Chastising the West for not recognizing the Hamas victory in parliamentary elections in the Palestinian Authority, Ahmadinejad said, “You [the West] want democracy but do not respect the outcome. It seems that you [the West] only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies.”

The current president of the European Union, Ursula Plassnik, who also serves as Austria’s foreign minister, condemned Ahmadinejad’s latest threat to destroy the Jewish state. “That this type of completely unacceptable remarks are continually being repeated does not mean we should accept them in silence,” she said.

Plassnik also said that the land of Israel should be divided between Arabs and Israelis, living side-by-side in two states, without violence or terrorism.

Right before Ahmadinejad’s speech, which also focused on Iran’s “inalienable” right to develop nuclear power, the crowd chanted “Death to America,” “Death to Israel,” and “Nuclear energy is our inalienable right.”

After Ahmadinejad declared that dust will blind “those who insulted the prophet,” the crowd cried, “Death to Denmark.””

“With all the hullabaloo lately about Iran's awesome new weapons, stratfor decided to put it in perspective (i.e. the Iranians are all show and no go):

Iran's New Weapons: More Flash Than Force?
April 06, 2006 22 44 GMT

Summary

During Iran's "Holy Prophet" military exercises in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, which concluded on April 6, Tehran announced several successful weapons tests. Some of these weapons were touted as new and capable of avoiding radar and hitting multiple targets. However, given Iran's actual technological capabilities, these claims are certainly exaggerated and intended for political effect on the region.

Analysis

Iran's March 31-April 6 military exercises, dubbed "Holy Prophet," in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman saw the deployment of thousands of troops from all of Iran's armed services, including the Islamic Republic Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia. During the exercises, high-ranking officers from the IRGC -- which is separate from Iran's regular armed forces, and controls the development and operation of Iran's ballistic missiles -- announced several successful weapons tests. The tests were meant to remind other countries in the region, along with the United States, that Iran can influence events militarily, particularly in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passageway that serves as an important corridor for oil transport.

However, though Iran might be able to close the strait for a short time, Tehran's implied ability to wreak havoc in the Persian Gulf is overrated. Iran lost the United States as a weapons source after the shah was overthrown, and the Islamic regime snubbed the Soviet Union; the Iranians have had to become very resourceful in modifying their existing systems. They have modified some U.S.-made Hawk surface-to-air missiles to be fired from F-14s and have produced modified versions of old U.S.-made F-5 fighters, armored vehicles and JetRanger light utility helicopters. All of these are based on systems more than 30 years old. While the Iranians are resourceful in modifying weapons manufactured in other countries, their indigenous capabilities are limited.



The tests began on March 31 with the launch of a Shahab-2 missile, a license-built version of the old Soviet R-11 "Scud C" design dating from the 1950s. Iran reportedly has 200 of these guided surface-to-surface missiles in its inventory. The Iranians also launched a missile which they claimed was designed to carry multiple warheads, strike multiple targets and avoid radar. There are a few problems with Tehran's claims about the second missile, which they referred to as the Farj-3 -- which is also the name of an unguided artillery rocket in their inventory.

The reference to multiple warheads implies that the missile could be configured with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), which would be a very significant technological advance for the Iranians. Tehran could have been referring to a new warhead designed for the missile which is capable of separating into multiple small "bomblets" over a target and dispersing over a wider area, which is not new technology. This is very different from a MIRV on a Shahab-2 or Shahab-3 missile, which would have serious strategic implications in the region.

The Iranians might have meant that the Shahab-2, rather than the Farj-3, can avoid radar. If so, this could be referring to a chaff dispenser fitted to the missile's re-entry vehicle. Chaff, first used during World War II, is strips of metal similar to aluminum foil that are dispensed to disrupt radar waves, thus obscuring the missile on tracking radars.

On the exercises' third day, the IRGC announced the successful test of a new weapon that they called a high-speed, rocket-propelled torpedo. Although claimed as a new Iranian weapon, this torpedo is probably an Iranian derivative of the Russian-designed VA-111 Shkval anti-submarine rocket. Powered by a rocket motor, the Shkval releases compressed air from vents near its nose, enveloping the missile in a bubble of air as it travels underwater. With less resistance on its surface, the Shkval is capable of speeds exceeding 200 miles per hour underwater, making it nearly impossible for a submarine or surface ship to evade. The Russians designed the Shkval as a defensive weapon for their submarines, to be fired directly at pursuing submarines. It has been suggested that the accidental activation of one of these weapons caused the August 2000 disaster aboard the Russian submarine Kursk.

However, the short range -- about four miles -- of the Shkval means it would be suicidal to use it against a U.S. Navy carrier battle group, and tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz can be attacked with less capable but more reliable weapons.

The day after the torpedo test, Iran tested the Kowsar "medium-range missile," which the Iranians said is impervious to electronic jamming. The Kowsar bears a strong resemblance to the Chinese-designed C-801 anti-ship missile, which is itself similar to the French Exocet missile. It is unclear what anti-jamming capabilities the Iranians were referring to; perhaps they have developed a version of the C-801 that uses passive guidance to track its target.

One of the most interesting weapons tests was on April 4, the fifth day of the exercises, when the successful flight of a "flying boat not picked up by radar" was announced. Iranian television showed a small propeller-driven aircraft flying close to the water's surface. This could have been a wing-in-ground effect vehicle, a boat with short outboard wings that cruises just above the water surface, creating a cushion of high-pressure air between its wings and the water surface. This technology was evaluated by the Russians during the Soviet period, and several prototype vehicles were built. The vehicle's alleged radar-resistant quality could be reference to its construction, possibly wood and fiberglass, or the vehicle's small size and ability to skim the water's surface. Armed with small anti-tank-type missiles, this vehicle could be used the way Iran used speedboats against Gulf shipping during the later phase of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Iran also tested the Noor air-to-surface missile, which Iranian military officials claimed could evade anti-missile defenses. This could be a reference to a countermeasures package installed on the weapon designed to decoy tracking radars or confuse targeting systems on anti-missile missiles. In addition, the Noor was called an "ultra-horizon" weapon, which could mean it can be fired from "over the horizon" in the direction of its target and track the target independently when it gets closer. This would represent a significant advance in Iran's tactical missile development capability but is not new technology.

Even if all of these systems are as formidable as the Iranians claim, militarily, the Islamic republic is vastly outclassed by Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of quality. In addition, the single most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf is the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which would make short work of any Iranian attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, probably before it could even begin.

Iranian exaggeration of these systems' capabilities has achieved exactly what it was intended to. These exercises, including video of some of the tests, were widely reported in the international media. Reports of Iran's "powerful" and supposedly indigenously designed weapons are meant to cause concern among the Gulf states and remind the United States that attacking Iran would come with a price.”

“Everyone knows a direct military confrontation between the US and Iraq would be a very one-sided affair. It’s the asymmetrical warfare that’s the #&%!$. Everyone should also know that by now.


BTW mutt, I’ve reported you to Stratfor for violating the terms of your subscriber agreement.”

“Still angry, violin? You have been beaten up here lately, so I can understand your temper.

What does assymetrical warfare in Iraq have to do with Iran's recent sabre rattling? Trying to set up a straw-man?
last edited: 4/07/06 9:24:08 AM”

“I'm looking at stratfor's last line. The 'price' of an attack on Iran likely wouldn't come in the first few months. Our experience in Iraq is relevant to that.”

“Ah, so indeed you are. The last line clearly is a just comment on Iran's intentions - not an estimation of the cost of war. You're just inserting a non-sequitur.”

“Thanks, oh wise, geopolitical expert man.”

“My fear that this might be used to cover the now and possibly thicker imigration issue. This administration has played that way and will until november has decided their fate. Remember , Iraq is not considered a war at this stage, but Iran could become an opportunist cry for voters to mantain the status quo. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just balance that house and senate with worthless dems and reps.”

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran;_ylt=ArHLmeNtJNyehVE9YSDAIe6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms. [snip]


LOOKS LIKE MEAT'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!
last edited: 5/12/06 11:58:02 AM”

“Can they trace it to Niger? Hay Geiger follow those camel prints.”

“This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)

By Nina Shea
Sunday, May 21, 2006; B01



Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.

A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.

....The problem is: These claims are not true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html”

“The Saudi royal A-holes are personal friends of the Bush family.

Maybe Georgie can talk some sense into those boys.”

“5 Myths About U.S.-Saudi Relations

By Rachel Bronson
Sunday, May 21, 2006; B04



T he United States and Saudi Arabia form one of the world's most misunderstood partnerships. The Saudis are a longtime oil supplier for the U.S. economy -- but on 9/11, their kingdom accounted for 15 of the 19 hijackers. The Bush family and the House of Saud are close -- yet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls for greater democracy in the region. To understand the relationship, a few misconceptions must be debunked:

1 The U.S.-Saudi relationship

is a bargain of oil

for security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901758_pf.html”

“Somebody ain't holding up their end of the bargain. LOL!”

“And of course before 9/11 the top mass murderers and terroists in the US were ..FROM THE US..”

“Interesting read on the (likely) upcoming nuclearized Middle East.

Link

The America-Hating wing of the Democratic party is likely to be purged.”

“Mutt, you mean there isn't part of the Dem Party that doesn't hate America?”

“The easy way to solve this is to use the old line from Big Jake.

You have an ambassador tell Abadeenijadiahanoljknlihemk or whatever the following.

We know you are building a nuke, we know you plan to use a nuke. So here is the game. IF A NUKE IS USED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Your fault, our fault, nobodys fault, we will consider it an attack on the United States and we will respond with EVERY weapon in our arsenal. Understand we can wipe out the earth 10 times over, Iran is small enough we can genetically eliminate you from the planet and not break a sweat. So you go home, tell the rest of the wierd beards we are waiting, we are sitting there just waiting to wipe you off the earth as easy as swatting a fly.”

“How small does one's weiner have to be before you start to have such fantasies?”