The US attacked Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Iran because it wants to maintain petrol dollar System not because of Terrorism, weapon of mass destruction or drugs or Dictatorship

 OIL, IRAN AND THE US DOLLAR: THE BATTLE FOR GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWER

From Henry Kissinger's dealings with oil-producing nations to Iran's potential challenge to dollar dominance, the struggle over oil raises critical questions about international power, economic independence and American influence.

For decades, the United States has benefited from the dollar's dominant position in international petroleum trading. Oil-producing countries earn substantial revenues from exports, and some of those earnings return to American financial markets through investments in US government securities.

This relationship, commonly associated with the petrodollar system, has become central to debates about American economic power.

A controversial geopolitical argument suggests that countries challenging this arrangement by changing how they sell their oil could threaten an important source of US financial influence.

At the centre of this debate are Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Alaska's oil reserves and the historical role of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. 

The dominance of the dollar in oil trading has helped the United States maintain its economic position, while countries seeking alternatives risk sponsored Insecurity, established financial disorder by creating dollar scarcity, Unfounded claims of possesing weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

HENRY KISSINGER AND THE PETRODOLLAR DEBATE.

Henry Kissinger served as US secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, during a period of major changes in international energy markets.

The 1973 oil crisis demonstrated how decisions by petroleum-producing countries could disrupt the economies of even the world's richest nations.

The United States subsequently strengthened its economic and strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, one of the world's leading oil exporters.

In 1974, Washington and Riyadh established a Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. Their relationship encompassed investment, economic cooperation and security interests.

Saudi Arabia accumulated substantial dollar revenues from oil exports, and some of its earnings were invested in American financial assets.

These developments contributed to the close relationship between petroleum trading and US financial markets.

Here is an extract from Lindsey Williams speech who's (also known as Pastor or Chaplain Lindsey Williams).

"There is as much crude oil on the north slope of Alaska as there is in Saudi Arabia.

Second largest oil field on the face of the earth is Iraq.

The third largest oil field on the face of the earth is Iran.

Iran has said by a certain date, we are going to flood the world with cheap oil.

They have the third largest oil field in the world.

They have said we are going to flood the world with cheap oil.

And here's the clincher, we are going to denominate all oil sales in euros.

Our president and vice president and Congress are shaking in their shoes because they know that if Iran succeeds on the date that they have said, that it will collapse the American dollar.

Something must be done with Iran before that date.

Watch out.

Why do people in the world have a nuclear bomb besides Iran?

Why don't they go after them?

North Korea?

Israel?

China?

I could go on and on.

Why, why don't they take them on?

They have to have an excuse.

You see, it was weapons of mass destruction.

Did they exist?

Why are they going to take Iran on now?

Oh, you'll hear every reason in the world.

There's a reason they won't tell you.

They know that if Iran succeeds on the date that they say they're going to, it will collapse the American dollar.

Because they'll undercut everybody in the world on oil sales.

Back in the sixties or seventies, a gentleman by the name of Henry Kissinger traveled to almost every oil-producing country in the world.

He went to Saudi Arabia.

And he said to them, I'll make you rich.

I'd like to cut you a deal.

And if you will go along with my deal, I'll see to it that we buy oil from you in America.

Now, watch carefully, and you'll understand why that oil from the North Slope of Alaska cannot be allowed to be brought to the refineries of America.

Are you ready?

Henry Kissinger said, I'll cut you a deal.

Oh, they said, what is it?

He said, we'll buy oil from you.

We'll make you wealthy.

You'll be sheiks and sheiks.

You can have everything you ever wanted.

Oh, they said, what's the deal?

He said, number one, you must denominate all oil sales in dollars.

Oh, they said, gladly.

We have no problem with that.

He said, secondly, you can have a certain percentage of that money to build your own company, country, your infrastructure, and the people that are there, and to supply for your country, country, but you must take a certain portion of the money that we buy oil from you with, you must take a certain portion of those American dollars and buy our national debt.

He didn't have the slightest idea what they were doing when they signed on the dotted line, and today Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing countries of the world have no choice.

They must denominate in American dollars, and they turn around and buy our national debt is the only thing that is keeping the American dollar afloat today.

There were two countries that wouldn't sign on the dotted line in the days of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Number one was Iraq.

Saddam.

He was too independent.

He said, I'm not going to be obligated.

The largest oil, known oil field on the face of the earth is Saudi Arabia.

Second largest oil field on the face of the earth is Iraq.

The third largest oil field on the face of the earth is Iran.

There's only one thing that touches the life of every human being on the face of this earth, and that is crude oil.

They chose it as a method of controlling the world in the early sixties, and now the World Bank are the ones that the transfer of oil from those third world countries to the oil refineries, and they're the ones making the exorbitant in-between profits, and you will never find it out by reading anybody's books.

Who makes the profit?

The World Bank and the IMF.

Please write this one down, because it carries great weight with what I'm going to say tonight.

What we pay at the gas pump is a form of taxation.

Very few things, I'll repeat twice, what we pay at the gas pump for a gallon of gasoline is a form of taxation that goes to those who control the world.

Gas prices at the gas pump in California will be four dollars to five dollars a gallon at the gas pump in the near, very near future, why you will be paying the national debt through the gas pump.

The argument presented in the extract interprets this relationship as part of a broader arrangement in which oil-producing nations would sell petroleum in dollars and recycle some of their earnings into US government debt.

Under this interpretation, the arrangement benefited both sides: oil exporters gained access to international markets and investment opportunities, while the United States benefited from international demand for its currency and government securities.

However, the historical record does not establish that Kissinger secured a binding agreement requiring Saudi Arabia to denominate every oil sale in dollars and invest a fixed percentage of its earnings in American government debt.

Nevertheless, the broader question remains relevant: how does the international oil trade reinforce the economic position of powerful nations?

IRAN AND THE THREAT OF CHEAPER OIL

One of the most striking claims in the extract concerns Iran's alleged intention to flood the global market with cheap oil while denominating its sales in euros.

The argument suggests that if Iran substantially increased its oil exports and offered competitive prices outside the dollar system, it could challenge established arrangements in international petroleum trading.

Iran possesses substantial proven oil reserves and has repeatedly sought to expand its energy exports despite American sanctions.

Its petroleum industry represents a major potential source of revenue, while access to international markets remains a central issue in its relationship with Washington.

The extract presents a scenario in which Iran could use its oil resources to attract buyers with cheaper supplies while encouraging transactions in euros.

Such a development could reduce the need for dollars in the transactions concerned, particularly if other major oil exporters adopted similar arrangements.

The extract goes further, warning that Iran's actions could undermine the American dollar and create an urgent incentive for Washington to act before a specified deadline.

IRAQ: SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE EURO QUESTION.

Iraq provides another important example in the debate over petroleum and international currencies.

In 2000, Iraq switched the currency used for certain oil sales under the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Programme from dollars to euros.

The decision subsequently became a recurring subject of discussion among commentators examining the relationship between oil, American financial power and the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

Some argue that Saddam Hussein's willingness to challenge dollar-denominated oil transactions formed part of the wider conflict between Iraq and Washington.

Iraq also possessed substantial petroleum resources, making it strategically important to regional and international powers.

Before the 2003 invasion, the US and British governments publicly justified military action through claims involving Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and security threats.

The expected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were not found after the invasion, and the intelligence supporting major prewar claims was subsequently heavily criticised.

Whether Iraq's oil wealth and financial independence influenced the invasion remains a subject of political debate.

WHY DOES IRAN FACE PRESSURE WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

The extract also questions why Iran faces intense international pressure over its nuclear programme while other countries possess nuclear weapons.

North Korea has conducted nuclear tests and withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. China is recognised under that treaty as a nuclear-weapon state.

Israel is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons, although it maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity and has not publicly confirmed its arsenal.

Iran, by contrast, remains a party to the treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Its nuclear programme has been the subject of international monitoring, disputes over safeguards, concerns about uranium enrichment and negotiations with major powers.

These differences help explain why the countries face different legal and diplomatic circumstances.

Their policies can influence the economic conditions facing developing countries, but this differs from directly collecting the principal profits generated by oil trading.

ALASKA'S OIL AND AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

 Alaska's North Slope and questions why the United States does not simply rely more heavily on its domestic petroleum resources.

Alaska is an important part of America's oil industry, with major fields including Prudhoe Bay.

ARE PETROL PRICES A FORM OF TAXATION ON ORDINARY PEOPLE?

One of the extract's strongest observations is that the price consumers pay at petrol stations can function like an additional financial burden on everyday economic activity.

Transport operators face higher operating expenses. Manufacturers pay more to move raw materials and finished products. Farmers face increased costs for machinery and distribution.

These expenses are often passed on to consumers through higher prices.

In the United States, petrol prices are influenced by crude oil prices, refinery capacity, transportation costs, taxes, seasonal demand and international developments.

In Nigeria, the effects can be particularly significant because fuel prices influence transportation, food distribution, electricity generation and the cost of essential goods.

When fuel becomes more expensive, households may have to devote a greater share of their income to basic necessities, leaving less money for education, housing, healthcare and savings.

This is why international disputes involving oil-producing countries can affect ordinary people thousands of kilometres away from the centres of political decision-making.

COULD THE WORLD MOVE AWAY FROM THE DOLLAR?

Several countries have explored alternative payment arrangements and increased the use of their national currencies in selected international transactions.

China has promoted the international use of the renminbi, while Russia has expanded alternative payment arrangements following Western sanctions. Other governments have discussed settling bilateral trade in local currencies.

Oil transactions can also be denominated or settled in euros and other currencies, depending on the agreement between buyers and sellers.

If these arrangements expanded significantly, they could gradually diversify international trade and reduce reliance on the dollar in particular markets.

However, replacing the dollar's dominant position would require more than one oil-producing country changing its payment arrangements. The dollar's international role is also supported by the size of the US economy, the depth of its financial markets, international demand for dollar-denominated assets and its established use in borrowing and foreign-exchange reserves.

Consequently, a rapid collapse of the dollar simply because Iran and other major oil producing countries sells more oil in another currency is capable of quickly crippling the US dollar which is why invading Venezuela was very important for the US.

Nevertheless, the growing interest in alternative payment systems highlights a significant development: countries are increasingly examining how to reduce their dependence on financial arrangements dominated by major global powers that affects the stability of their national currency.