In my last post, Iraqis Revenge Plays Into Bush's Plan to Plunder Oil, a TPM Blogger called my assertion that Bush wants control of the oil in Iraq, "nonsensical." My reply was so long, I decided to make it into a new post for others to read, too.

Folks, the "war for oil" argument has been around since before the Iraq War started. It was first posted in January 2003 in an online essay written by William R. Clark. who wrote:

The Real Reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard, and to secure control of Iraq's oil before the onset of Peak Oil (predicted to occur around 2010). However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

In fact, Saddam Hussein had already made this switch in October 2000 -- the month before Democrats say Bush "stole" Gore's presidency. While Saddam said he no longer wanted to use “the currency of the enemy,” exchanging the U.S. dollar for the unilateral Euro, turned out to be a shrewd move: `Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro,' (The Observer, February 16, 2003).

THIS was Saddam’s real WMD (as in Weapon of Monetary Devaluation), because this little "windfall" gave Saddam cause to persuade other oil countries to do the same, further devaluing the American dollar and economy.

Now, obviously, the theories of a security analyst with a Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in Information and Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins University isn't going to stop President Bush from launching a military attack on Iraq, especially as it’s becoming increasingly obvious the war was set into motion on Day One of Bush's taking office.

And even if the media DID pick this up, no one was going to give it any legs, because Bush-Cheney-Rumsfled along with the Rabid Right GOP were suffering from "war fever," biting the heads off ANYONE who dared question "their guy." (Judging by Deanie Mills' recent post, they're having a relapse.)

Why didn’t the media at least ask the question? Perhaps all their corporate stockholders didn’t want this to happen:

This information about Iraq's oil currency is not discussed by the U.S. media or the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off Middle-Eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards a war with Iraq.

However, this theory continued to carry water. Since then Clark has written a book, "Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse." In it he says,

Some analysts believe civil unrest might unfold in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Gulf states in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq [3]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and control Saudi's large Ghawar oil fields in the event of a Saudi coup by an anti-western group.

Is that “anti-western group” Iran? Bush and his neocon buddies aren’t afraid a group of Islamic fanatics with nuclear weapons would “follow us home;” that’s just another example of this administration’s continuous fear-mongering.

...recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against [Iran's] suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming 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.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. ... the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort 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 of U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

I don't read the financial pages, including the posts on TPM's front page, they’re like reading tech manuals. But I do understand enough about history and economics to know that wars are FINANCED for only one reason: To get or keep wealth.

I decided to check this "bourse" thing out and guess what I found. Last month, head of the Bourse Organization and Tehran Stock Exchange, Ali Salehabadi, said, "the Bourse Organization has already issued the required permits for the establishment of an oil bourse."

"Given the importance of the formation of the oil bourse, particularly for the current [President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] administration, we have been following up the case with all means, although we are only duty-bound to set the preliminary conditions for the task," [Salehabadi] said.

And it looks like Iran isn’t the only oil country preparing to invite foreign (as in Euro-carrying?) investors:

Gulf Utility Opens Up to Foreign Investors

Taqa, the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, is to open its shares to foreign ownership.

The Gulf’s second-largest utility by market value is one of 11 companies that will be showcased in London and New York as Abu Dhabi seeks to encourage foreign investment in the Gulf’s best-performing bourse.

The companies, also including National Bank of Abu Dhabi, will join the marketing trip .....