Iran : Emerging Euro oil market


Richard Moore

Several of our recent postings have discussed Iran in
relationship to a Euro-trading system, and the threat to the
petrodollar system. This article provides the solid background
documentation we've been lacking.

Thanks to "FFRANKMAX" for forwarding the article. 



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

By  William  Clark 

September 27, 2004 

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

"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

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 maintainingthe 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
5 th , 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

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"Š" 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 ."

"Š 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."

"ŠHe [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."

"ŠSome 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."

"Š.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."

"ŠAlong 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."

"ŠIt 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,"Š"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."

"Š.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 shownŠ."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 2 nd 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

"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."

"ŠAn attack on Iranian nuclear facilitiesŠcould 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"Š"one thing is for certain, it
would not be just another Osirak . " [17]


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

- Thomas Jefferson


[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)

[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the
international oil market," Financial Times , June 5, 2003

[3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a
pre-emptive strike," Newsweek , September 27 issue, 2004.

[4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier
terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003).

[5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil
trading," The [UK] Guardian , June 16, 2004,3604,1239644,00.

[6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight:
Public Affairs Magazine , June 9, 2004

[7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits
Tehran," (July 8, 2004)

[8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006,"
Reuters, October 5, 2004

[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) 

[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar,"
AFP, June 9, 2003 

[12] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China
Business Weekly, May 8, 2004

[13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will
have terrible consequences ," News Insight: Public Affairs
Magazine , June 11, 2004

[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island,

[15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The
Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003

[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)

[18] Philips, Peter, " Censored 2004 ," Project Censored,
Seven Stories Press, (2003)

Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the
Invasion of Iraq

William Clark is the author ofan 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 .' , also
published by Global Research at 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 systemthereby 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.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not  necessarily reflect
those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants  permission to cross-post
original Global Research articles in their entirety, or  any
portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the
text & title  are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink  address to the
original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright
 note must be displayed.  For publication of Global Research
articles in print or  other forms including commercial
internet sites, contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not  always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such  material available to our
readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an  effort to
advance a better understanding of political, economic and
social  issues. The material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who  have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational  purposes. If you
wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair
 use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion
at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright William Clark, Global Research, 2005

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005 


"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"

List archives:

Subscribe to low-traffic list: