This is such a short video that it amounts to a nano- sec. However it does show Amdinajhad was at a meeting about the pipeline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny2C9iDX_-Y

Intressant.. jag realterade direkt till Lindsey Williams och hans bok The energy non-crisis där han tar upp den enligt honom igentliga orsaken till varför USA antagligen kommer invadera Iran.

Det skulle vara att Iran har planer på att börja exportera enorma mängder olja och kanske andra resurser för en relativt billig slant till omvärlden , vilket i sin tur skulle leda till katastrof för USA' ekonomi.

Detta kan man ju se som ett steg i den planen om man vill.

Quote: Problemet är att Usa inte får betalt för den...... läs detta..



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19839.htm

The Iraq War Morphs Into The Iranian War

By Paul Craig Roberts

29/04/08 "ICH" - -- -It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.

The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.

The American mass media is overjoyed. War coverage attracts viewers and sells advertising.

The neoconservatives are ecstatic. Hegemony uber alles is back on track.

The US Air Force can’t wait “to show what it can do.”

Defense contractors see no end of the profits.

Under cover of the mayhem and propaganda, Israel can grab the remains of the West Bank and have another go at grabbing the water resources of southern Lebanon.

Unlike the US and Israel, Iran is neither occupying any other country’s territory nor threatening to invade another country. Nevertheless, propaganda against Iran is spouting from US and Israeli mouths at an increasing rate. Lie after lie rolls off the tongues of leaders of the “two great democracies.”

On April 27 Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed Iran for “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq. Has Admiral Mullen forgot that it is the US, not Iran, that is responsible for as many as one million dead Iraqis and four million displaced Iraqis, the “collateral damage” of a “cakewalk war” now into its sixth year?

On April 26 the Washington Post reported that “the Pentagon is planning for potential military courses of action” against Iran.

The Bush Regime’s national security advisor says Iran is a threat in Iraq, an accusation echoed endlessly by secretary of defense Robert Gates, secretary of state Rice, vice president Cheney, and president Bush. The US, which has 150,000 troops in Iraq, is not a threat. The US troops are protecting Iraq from Iran, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Just ask Fox “News.”

Doing its part to egg on war with Iran, the US TV news program, “60 MInutes,” gave air time to the commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Eliezer Shkedi, who declared in a special interview that Iranian president Ahmadinejad was the new Hitler and that we must not again make the mistake of disbelieving a Hitler.

There are better candidates for the role than Ahmadinejad.

Gen. Shkedi himself sounds like Hitler blaming Poland for the outbreak of the second world war. Ahmadinejad has attacked no country, whereas Israel repeatedly invades its neighbors and continues 40-year occupations of Syrian and Palestinian territory.

As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China’s occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about “Palestinian terrorism” while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.

Americans see no hypocrisy in “their” government’s damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.

Americans see manifest destiny, not US aggression, when “their” government drops bombs on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Americans do not think it is aggression for them to develop war plans to attack Iran or China or N. Korea or whomever, or to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the globe. The same Americans work themselves into hysterical frenzies over “Iranian influence in Iraq” and “al Qaeda plans to bring the war to America.”

As Chomsky says, we own the world. No one else counts.

Except Israel.

Israel counts so much that every presidential candidate has declared his and her willingness to expend whatever American blood and treasure are necessary “to protect Israel.” There are no limits on the promise “to defend Israel,” no matter what Israel does, no matter if Israel initiates (yet again) war with its neighbors, no matter if it continues to force Palestinians out of their homes and villages in order to “create living room” for Israelis.

With this sort of promise, why should Israel ever settle for anything less than “greater Israel”?

Just as the US government launched its illegal invasion of Iraq on the back of lies about weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds, the US government claims it must attack Iran or Iran will build a nuclear weapon. The Bush Regime has learned never to discard a lie as long as it works.

The lie works for the US Congress, the US media and much of the US public, but it is breaking down abroad. On April 27 the British newspaper, the Independent, responded to the recent US government claim that the Syrian facility attacked last September by Israel in an act of naked aggression was a nuclear reactor built by N. Korea:

“There is no independent way to verify any of this, especially since the installation has now been destroyed. We must rely on the integrity of the Israeli and US intelligence. That is where we hit a problem. The former US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented similar evidence to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003 showing what we were told was strong evidence of Iraqi storage of weapons of mass destruction. As we all know, that intelligence turned out to be bogus.”

A needless war, a country destroyed, all for bogus intelligence. Why must we repeat our crime in Iran?

Why do we persist in our crime in Iraq? On April 27 McClatchy Newspapers reported that 50 Iraqi political leaders representing numerous political groups including Sunnis went to Sadr City to protest the siege by the US military. Why is al Sadr under seige? He called for a halt to bloodshed between Iraqis, for a “liberation of ourselves and our lands from the occupier,” for “a real government and real sovereignty.” However, for the Bush Regime, rhetoric about “freedom and democracy” is but a mask behind which to impose a US puppet government. Real Iraqi leaders like al Sadr are “terrorists” who must be eliminated.

Why do the American people and “their” representatives in Congress continue to tolerate a criminal Bush Regime that uses lies and propaganda to mask its acts of naked aggression, war crimes under the Nuremberg standard?

Why does the rest of the world continue to receive political representatives from a war criminal government?

What if the rest of the world told the US to close its bases, its embassies, its CIA operations and to go home?

Self-righteous Americans would regard such demands as effrontery! We own the world.

Det handlar om vem som äger Jorden....

Å man kan fylla på med denna..


Iran Ends Oil Transactions In U.S. Dollars

OPEC's Second-Largest Producer Now Pegs Petroleum To Euros And Yen


Iranian oil workers seen at Tehran's oil refinery, Iran, Nov. 17, 2007. Although OPEC has traditionally tied its price of oil to U.S. dollars, Iran has announced it has shifted sales of its oil to euros and yen. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)



Related
Interactive
Oil and Gas:
Fossil Fuels

Learn more about energy costs and usage in your state and get the latest prices for gasoline.




Stories
Oil Prices Surpass $110 A Barrel
OPEC Speaks, Oil Costs Continue Climb


(AP) Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, has completely stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars, a top Oil Ministry official said Wednesday, a concerted attempt to reduce reliance on Washington at a time of tension over Tehran's nuclear program and suspected involvement in Iraq.

Iran has dramatically reduced dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of increasing U.S. pressure on its financial system and the fall in the value of the American currency.

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and eroded the value of their dollar reserves.

"The dollar has totally been removed from Iran's oil transactions," Oil Ministry official Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told state-run television Wednesday. "We have agreed with all of our crude oil customers to do our transactions in non-dollar currencies."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the depreciating dollar a "worthless piece of paper" at a rare summit last year in Saudi Arabia attended by state leaders from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Iran put pressure on other OPEC countries at the meeting to price oil in a basket of currencies, but it has not been able to generate support from fellow members — many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.

Iran has a tense relationship with the U.S., which has accused Tehran of using its nuclear program as a cover for weapons development and providing support to Shiite militants in Iraq that are killing American troops. Iran has denied the allegations.

Iranian oil officials have said previously that they were shifting oil sales out of the dollar into other currencies, but Ghanimifard indicated Wednesday that all of Iran's oil transactions were now conducted in either euros or yen.

"In Europe, Iran's oil is sold in euros, but both euros and yen are paid for Iranian crude in Asia," said Ghanimifard.

Iran's central bank has also been reducing its foreign reserves denominated in U.S. dollars, motivated by the falling value of the greenback and U.S. attempts to make it difficult for Iran to conduct dollar transactions.

U.S. banks are prohibited from conducting business directly with Iran, and many European banks have curbed their dealings with the country over the past year under pressure from Washington.

However, the U.S. has been wary of targeting Iran's oil industry directly, apparently worried that such a move could drive up crude prices that are already at record levels.

Iranian analysts say Tehran can withstand U.S. pressure as long as it can continue its oil and gas sales, which constitute most of the country's US$80 billion in exports.


© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

IRAN-EUROPE GAS DEALS ANGER WASHINGTON

Frustrating Washington's efforts to cripple the Iranian economy through an international sanctions regime, Tehran has "concluded gas deals with Chinese and Malaysian companies — ending a protracted lull in investment in its energy sector — and has alarmed Washington by reaching an agreement with a Swiss group," the Financial Times of London reported Wednesday.[1] -- "The dilemma threatens to expose the limited U.S. influence over foreign companies strategic decisions," wrote Daniel Dombey, Anna Fifield, and Haig Simonian, because "[a]lthough Washington and its allies have convinced the United Nations Security Council to sign up to three sets of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear and missile sectors and banks, it has been unable to broaden such international measures into the key energy sector.

" -- NOTE: American "anger" about gas deals is put in perspective by the fact that although U.S. law sanctions non-U.S. companies investing in Iran's oil industry, “sanctions have not been imposed against European Union companies since 1998 because successive U.S. administrations have waived them on national security grounds,” as Ed Crooks and Stephen Fidler noted in a Jan.

24, 2007 article in the Financial Times....



IRAN-EUROPE GAS DEALS ANGER WASHINGTON
By Daniel Dombey (Washington), Anna Fifield (Tehran), and Haig Simonian (Zurich)



Financial Times (London)
April 30, 2008



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a473f7de-16 ... dd-bbfc-0000779fd2ac.html



The U.S. and its allies are worried that the sanctions regime against Tehran is under threat from a possible new wave of European investment in Iran’s strategically important gas sector.





Tehran has already concluded gas deals with Chinese and Malaysian companies -- ending a protracted lull in investment in its energy sector -- and has alarmed Washington by reaching an agreement with a Swiss group.





The dilemma threatens to expose the limited U.S. influence over foreign companies strategic decisions.





Although Washington and its allies have convinced the United Nations Security Council to sign up to three sets of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear and missile sectors and banks, it has been unable to broaden such international measures into the key energy sector.





Until recently, informal U.S. pressure -- combined with the difficulties associated with doing business in Iran -- had appeared to dissuade many companies from signing formal contracts.





Now, the U.S. fears that a 25-year supply agreement concluded in March between Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg (EGL) of Switzerland and Iran could encourage other deals, particularly in the gas sector, despite American calls for tougher sanctions against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program. The Swiss government says the deal could be worth up to 27bn euros ($42bn, £21bn).





“The worry is that the Swiss deal will lead others, such as the Austrians, to confirm energy investments in Iran, and that companies like [France’s] Total could then follow suit and sign contracts of their own,” said one Western diplomat. He pointed out that the EGL agreement ended a period in which European energy companies had largely confined themselves to agreeing only non-binding memoranda of understanding with Iran.





He added: “There is a lot of attention on sanctions on Iranian banks, but investment in the energy sector is much more important for Iran’s economy.” Iran has the world’s second-largest proven gas reserves, but exports far below its potential.





Flynt Leverett, a former U.S. National Security Council adviser on the Middle East, says pressure is growing on non-U.S. companies to conclude supply contracts with Iran in the wake of the deals already signed between Tehran and Sinopec of China and SKS of Malaysia.





So angry is Washington about the Swiss deal that it has suggested that Switzerland’s role as the U.S. representative in Cuba and Iran could be at risk.





Swiss officials reply that no international sanctions prohibit investment in the Iranian energy sector, and that the gas supply contract signed by EGL is intended to alleviate energy shortages in Italy. “For almost 30 years, Switzerland has rendered good services to the U.S. as their protecting power in Iran,” said a Swiss foreign ministry spokesman.





The website of the U.S. embassy in Bern carries a series of questions about the gas deal, explicitly raising the question of whether Switzerland’s role is “in jeopardy.” Officials there merely say that Switzerland has a mandate to represent the U.S. “at this time.

”



Following the deal, some European leaders have voiced concern about new investment in liquefied natural gas, the sector in which groups such as Total, Royal Dutch Shell, and Austria’s OMV have struck preliminary agreements but have yet to sign formal contracts.

Iran has warned such companies they need to conclude deals by June or it will look elsewhere for investment.





Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister, said in the U.S. this month that he wanted to broaden sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program “to include investment in liquefied natural gas.

”



At present, there are no such sanctions at either U.N. or E.U. level against investment in Iran’s gas sector.





European diplomats say it is unlikely that the E.U. will agree formal sanctions on the Iranian energy sector in the immediate future -- instead it is concentrating on measures against Iran’s Bank Melli. Foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany meet in London tomorrow to discuss further action against Iran. Diplomats say Mr Brown’s words are an attempt to increase the political pressure against new investment in the sector.





Under U.S. law, investments of above $20m (13m euros, £10m) in Iran’s energy sector can lead to U.S. retaliatory measures. But Mr. Leverett said Washington’s options were limited. “The E.U. would effectively take us to court [at the World Trade Organization] and the U.S. would probably lose,” he said.





Hojatullah Ghanimi Fard, head of international affairs at the National Iranian Oil Company, said Tehran was legitimately supplying an international need. “Would it be wise to deprive common people of consuming countries of supplies from Iran?” he asked.

Kan du inte göra en sammanfattning av dina tankar istället för att posta 5 a4 med text?=)

förstår inte riktigt vad du menar nu, bra läsning dock!

Quote:

Visst var det.. Dock oroande att en nation tro sig ha ensamrätten, nä det är värre än så....Den nation som åberopar rätten till naturtillgångarna i andras länder är "kidnappad" av corporationen som vill slå mynt av naturtillgångarna, dessutom så är det samma ägare till militärindustrin och den industri som får alla kontrakt vid återuppbyggnaden av tex Irak, men dom skulle inte kunna göra ett skit utan bankerna, så det är lika bra att äga dom också...... det var mina tankar...