In my view, PG, the US is too weak (by far) to take any significant action against Iran and, in fact, Iran is emerging as the dominant power in the region. Although they are in decline oil producing wise, they are still a major producer that has deals with Iraq (in the Shia' south), India and China. I don't know what further investiment in their production capacity will yield, but given major investment from these major partners -- there is no doubt that they are considered a major player by those nations -- there may be additional fossil fuel resouces to draw on -- who knows? I think their nuclear program is two-pronged - nuclear power for internal purposes and a nuclear bomb capability to have extra leverage in world affairs. Fears by Israel about nuclear threats on their country are paranoid. Iran wants to be a major player in world affairs, not a destructive force that destroys the Zionists, thus bringing down huge destruction on themselves. Those mullahs may be crazy, but they are not that crazy.

I will say that sometimes I think the US invasion of Iraq has only made Iran a major political force, perhaps the major energy force, to be reckoned with in the region.

Iran just told the European negotiators to "screw off" with respect to their Uranium enrichment program. Not only is this a point of national pride for them, buy it may also reflect their power vis-a-vis fossil fuel exports to the developing nations around them, at least in the short term.

I joked with a close friend lately that our invasion of Iraq succeeded in making the Iranians (with their Shia' friends in Southern Iraq) the dominant player in the region. I was only half-kidding.

See www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com posted 8/8/05 which discusses Clark's theory in relation to Iraq and gives history of Castro / Chavez in influencing OPEC policy on Euro pricing.

Glad you posted that link PG - I was just about to add it to the previous thread comments as it seemed there were some people who are a bit confused about the ramifications of this.

And, of course, it lets us ruminate darkly about the possibility of invasion again...

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/petrodollar-warfare-dollars-euros...

The U.S. invasion of Iraq finally ended the Iran/Iraq war on Iran's terms.

If Cheney is willing to nuke Iran should another 9/11 type attack happen, is it too far fetched to believe that the original 9/11 terroristic action was set up and endorsed by the Bush administration in order to "nuke" iraq?

Mike: Yes. It is too farfetched.

Mike: No. It is not at all too farfetched.

I concur with George. It is entirely possible that 9/11 was prefabbed with help from insiders. Indeed, only insiders could have packed as much thermite around the support columns of the towers and arranged for it to burn at the same time the jets impacted. Or perhaps the burning jet fuel set it off, but I doubt it. Decscriptions of people working in the basement witnessing the shake in the buildings from the crash, then witnessing massive incendiary action in the basement immediately after the impact lend credence to the theory that the buildings were rigged to collapse. That plus the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 hours later ... the mystery of which was later solved when the guy who owns the buildings revealed that he'd orderd it to be brought down, meaning it had also been rigged.

This world is so very fucked up and so very few details of the reality of how things really work make it out into the public view.

Theres not really a conspiracy, just a whole lot of powerful interests all aligned in the same direction. They want power and control and will do what they need to do to maintain it. Problem is, BushCo interests are clashing with the real PTB interest now, so count on the "Great Foreclosure" of America by its financiers. And I'm talking about forclosure by the old money financiers, not the new money ones.

Ye gawds, I thought that such conspiracy-mongering was exclusive to the diseased societies of the Middle East!

E-P:
You want a scary conspiracy proposal (I have no evidence), here it is:

What if "we" the USA/Bush are not the architects of the envasion of Iraq but merely pawns?

What if the Saudi's wanted us to attack Iraq so as to secure for them a buffer zone against Iran?

What if the Saudi's wanted us to attack Iraq so as to secure for them control and ownership of Saddam's oil fields?

Matt Simmons is saying the Saudi elephant fields are past peak. If that is true, and the Saudi's know it, and they see the more virgin Iraqi fileds sitting next door, would it not be a wise business move to have the USA/Britain attack Iraq and then to take over control of those oil fields after the US pulls out --or not, because US troops are anyways defending Saudi interests?

So if Cindy (@Crawford) Sheehan wants to know why her son Casey died, the answer might be (maybe) to secure oil fields for the Saudi's. Maybe the Suadi's orchestrated 9/11 on 9/11 intentionally so as to give Bush the battle cry for rallying our boys to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Saudi business interests?

--But of course, this is all a crazy conjecture. I have no evidence.
Well, no hard core, kiss on the cheeks evidence:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020429MoPaul.html

I don't see how this could be true at all. If invading Iraw was all about oil we'd have $1.00/gallon gas by now.

It IS about power, however which I guess oil and power are going hand in hand now...