Why is Iran Still in the Cross-Hairs?

[Richard D]

This is fascinating and potentially very important:

by Dr. Ellen Hodgson Brown

Clues from the Project of a New American Century

In the latest escalation of tensions with Iran, on January 5, 2008 five Iranian patrol boats surrounded three U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, coming within a “threatening” 200 meters. A voice with a thick accent then said in English, “I am coming at you – you will explode in a couple of minutes.” The U.S. ships prepared to strike, when the patrol boats backed off. That is how the Pentagon told it, but Iranians have questioned where the threatening voice came from, and Pentagon officials have admitted that they could not confirm that it came directly from the Iranian crews involved. They have also admitted that the voice and the video film were recorded separately, adding to the mysterious circumstances. 1

Skeptical observers might think that the two countries were being goaded into World War III – either that, or that someone wanted to convince American viewers that Iran indeed remained a threat, despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) finding that the country is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program as formerly alleged. Before President George W. Bush left for his Middle East visit on January 8, he told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, “Part of the reason I’m going to the Middle East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the NIE in no way lessens that threat.” 2 Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said in a recent MSNBC news broadcast that there is still a “great possibility” of nuclear action against Iran. The target has just shifted from nuclear power plants to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has been declared a terrorist organization. Paul said, “here are still quite a few neoconservatives who want to go after Iran under these unbelievable conditions.” 3

The question is, why? One popular theory holds that the push for war is all about oil; but many countries have oil, and we don’t normally invade them to get their assets. Why go to war for Iran’s oil when we can just buy it?

(snip)

Could the “viable economic alternative” that threatens the Western economic model be one that declares the collecting of interest to be illegal? That is the model Iran is now holding out to the world. In 1979, Iran was established as an “Islamic Republic,” designed to enforce the principles of the Koran not just morally or religiously but as a matter of state government policy. Afghanistan, which is also in the cross-hairs of the U.S. war machine, and Pakistan, which the U.S. is trying hard to control, are also Islamic Republics. The economic principles of the Koran include Sharia banking, which forbids “usury.” In the Koran, usury is defined as charging not just excess interest but any interest.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/why-is-iran-still-in-the-cross-hairs-by-dr-ellen-hodgson-brown/

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Because Bush is still in the White House

--p!

[mike_c]

2. it's not about getting oil, it's about CONTROLLING oil and the countries...

...that produce it, and the region of the world where most of it lies.

[Warpy]

3. Because conservatives are stupid and limited men

who can never quite manage to let go of any bad idea that comes along.

[Briar]

4. Excellent article

and right on the money.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. But slightly outdated.

The indicent in the straits is not the most recent development. This AM Petraeus renewed the 'Iranian IEDs' theme, saying that in recent days the number of incidents has tripled, even while saying there is no evidence that there has been an increase of IEDs being smuggled in from Iran. (Nevermind that there was never any evidence for it in the first place, either.)

The push for war is definitely still on.

[ladjf]

6. Because war is the mainstay of Bush and Cheney's political

process. It was worked for them in the past. Why should the future be any different?

Both should be in prison.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Like the decision about Iraq from before day 1 of the Bush era, war has already been decided upon.

The neocons live in a world of their own making. They are madmen (almost all men, anyway). They are determined to rule the Middle East, and to control the world's oil supplies. It's all about power. They had every intention of taking out Iraq once they put their boy, George W., in the White House. W immediately put the PNAC crowd in charge of foreign policy. Attacking Iraq was a foregone conclusion the day the Supreme Court installed W as president.

The same crowd made their minds up a long time ago that Iran will be attacked. The consequences mean nothing to them (remember Iraq?). They have no respect for human life generally, just their own "class," and that's not who is going to die in another war.

I firmly believe the decision was made long ago - they are just fishing for the right excuse and timing. Cheney has dropped off the face of the Earth, which likely means he is in a bunker somewhere planning the attack.

George Bush will not leave office without attacking Iran. (In fact, he might not leave office at all, at least not willingly. But that's for another thread.)

[Bear down under]

8. Rerum Novarum?

From the article:
"It is interesting to contrast the clear moral mandate expressed through Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (634-644 AD) about “ravenous usury” as “a demon condemned by the Church but practiced in a deceitful way by avaricious men,” with Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Solicitude Rei Socialis (1987) which omits any explicit mention of usury, except for a vague reference to recognizing the Third World debt crisis."

It is an interesting comparison indeed, but Leo XIII was Pope from 1878 to 1903 and Rerum Novarum was promulgated on May 15, 1891. Which makes Leo's thinking a little bit more up to date than a seventh-century date suggests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum

[Prophet 451]

9. I don't see it

Granted, the ravages of capitalism are rampant (although the Knights Templar built the precurser to the international banking system in the 13th century by the simple expediant of charging a fee on every transaction) but Iran's ban on usury is superficial. In reality, banks and financial institutions simply find other ways to charge what amounts to the same thing.

Iran is in the crosshairs because of oil. Not selling it but controlling access to it. Wars in Iran and Iraq push the price of oil higher. Via profit-sharing agreements, the IOCs make out like bandits from this. Which industry are Bush and Cheney heavily involved with? In fact, some (including myself) think the Iraq war was deliberatly designed to fail and plunge the country into civil war, thus removing Iraq's four million barrels a week from the global market and pushing teh price higher.

[atheo]

10. Check in with reality Ellen

Check in with reality Ellen

Singapore becoming a nascent hub for Islamic banking…Soon enough, Islamic “values” will prove no more difficult for capitalism to mold in its image than Asian “values” were.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/05/islamic_banking_hits_a_crucial.html

banks use Murabaha (a “cost-plus” transaction) to finance mortgages. In a Murabaha deal, the bank purchases a property for market price and then immediately resells it to the buyer for an agreed-upon higher price. However, the buyer pays the higher price to the bank over a period of time, throughout which the bank retains ownership of the underlying asset as collateral. As a result, while the bank never formally charges interest, it receives imputed interest in the form of the contractually guaranteed higher resale price.

http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/wallstreet/10373684_2.html

Entirely missing from Ellen’s analysis is Iran’s principled support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, etc…

She appears to be making a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the obvious: wars for eretz Israel.

“Islamic scholars have been seeking to devise a global banking system that would serve as an alternative to the interest-based scheme that is in control of the world economy, and Iran has led the way in devising that model.”

Disinformation. Malaysia is far and away more of a leader in this field.

“Iran was able to escape the debt trap that captured other developing countries because it had its own oil.”

More disinformation. Iran “escaped the debt trap” because the zionists refused to extend them credit. Many oil producers with large impoverished populations have been caught up in debt traps.

Iran offers a “viable economic alternative”???

Iran’s ban on usury is only superficial, in fact it’s economy is as capitalist as any. This article is so inane that it can only be viewed as a red herring. Iran’s economy is fully open to multi-national “free trade”, the true restrictions originate from the zio-cons. Iran’s national assets are even being privatised. What kind of “research” led Brown to this baseless thesis? Open your eyes Ellen, the “contagion” is resistance to zionist domination.

[Demeter]

11. It's Called Idee Fixe

idee fixe



Main Entry: idée fixe
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)ē-ˌdā-ˈfēks\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural idées fixes \same\
Etymology: French, literally, fixed idea
Date: 1836
: an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period : obsession

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/idee%20fixe