How badly does the United States want to maintain the value of the dollar? According to columnist Nazanin Amirian of Publico, what has been behind most recent U.S. wars is not human rights or weapons of mass destruction, but the imperative of beating back all challengers to the dominance of the greenback as the world’s currency.
For Publico, Nazanin Amirian writes in part:
When Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, some analysts cited Saddam Hussein’s decision to abandon the dollar for the euro in the oil trade as the main reason. Two months after the occupation, the greenback returned to the Iraq market. The same theory asserts that the NATO attack on Libya was to prevent Qaddafi, in the face of a declining dollar, from filling the Libyan Central Bank with gold and offering a gold-backed dinar as the sole currency for Africa.
The recent opening of the Iranian Petroleum Exchange – which excludes use of the U.S. currency – has also coincided with increased tension between Tehran and Washington. This so-called “true Iranian bomb” is designed to compete with London’s International Petroleum Exchange and New York Mercantile Exchange, both of which depend on U.S. power and its currency.
The conflict with Iran has nothing to do with its non-existent nuclear weapons or its anti-dollar petroleum market. As in the cases of Iraq and Libya, it is for the purpose of seizing a strategic region soaked in black gold.”
READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US