What Bush doesn't want you to know about Iran's Nukes

by Calum Coburn (26 March 2007)

The Bush administration's accusation that Iran is building nuclear weapons is a smoke screen. This well researched article proves that the real Bush administration agenda centres on stealing Iran and Iraq's oil wealth.

The Bush administration wants you to believe that we need to attack a maniac in Iran who is building nuclear weapons and threatening world peace. Bush is doing a pretty good job of persuading Joe Public, with more than a little help from many popular USA news services. This article proves that nuclear weapons is just a smoke screen used to distract you from the real negotiations going on behind closed doors at the United Nations.

What does this remind you of? The excuse to invade Iraq. Remember the phantom "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Before we dig our hands deep into our overly taxed pockets, let's examine the facts to get to the truth. The last thing the USA and allied tax payers want is to be forced to cough up hundreds of billions of dollars to finance yet another unwanted war. We're convinced you'll come to the same conclusion we have - that the real issue is the Bush administration's greed for Black Gold, i.e. Oil Money.

Tough Questions Time

Here are the most important questions we should ask:

  • Doesn't the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty protect us?
  • Does Iran pose a real nuclear threat that we should be worried about?
  • How does the Bush administration Profit from Attacking Iran?
  • What's the bigger picture and what do other countries say?
  • Are the U.N. sanctions really working?
  • Can diplomatic negotiations resolve this deadlock?

nuclear explosion

Who will blink first?

The bellicose chest thumping of both the Bush administration and the Iranians has escalated precariously. The USA military presence has been beefed up with additional carrier forces in the Persian Gulf. As an act of defiance, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard conducted grand scale military exercises 3 days before the U.N. deadline of February 21st 2007.

What is Iran saying?

  • Iran is choosing not to accept the Bush administration's pre-condition to negotiation. This precondition is that Iran cease its current nuclear enrichment program.
  • Iran insists that their nuclear enrichment is purely for peaceful energy purposes. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that there can be no pre-conditions for talks.
  • Iran's President Ahmadinejad has made a counter proposal that Western governments suspend uranium enrichment themselves before any talks can proceed.

Euro or Petro-dollars?

Iraq was attacked after Saddam Hussein shifted oil contracts from United States greenback dollars to Euros. Iran's move to Euros has resulted in war threats. A respected fact amongst currency traders is that the greenback would suffer a form of collapse should the (predominantly Arab) world move their oil contracts from American dollars to other currencies.

Who are you calling unreasonable?

The truth is that Iran has stated repeatedly they are prepared to negotiate, but it's the Bush administration who refuse to talk. Lately the European allies have come under pressure from the Bush administration in the U.N. negotiations and capitulated into not negotiating directly with Iran.

Iran has stated it has no intention of making nuclear weapons, so why should they stop enriching? Iran has pointed the finger back in saying that if the Bush administration wants Iran to stop enrichment, then the USA should lead by example and cease its own nuclear development program. We think that Iran has a valid point, (and is meeting the Bush administration's aggressive positional tactics in kind). Wouldn't our planet be safer if worldwide nuclear weapon production was halted? We would feel safer if the man with more nukes than the rest of the world combined (Bush) was at least able to pronounce "nuclear" correctly...

bush stifling conversion The Bush administration is of the old (unsuccessful) school of Positional Negotiation, and has yet to hear of collaborative negotiation. Ex oil executive Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying: "The United States is in a position now where I think we send a very strong message to the Iranians through the Presidents decision to send the carrier strike group into the Gulf...and the fact that we've been shutting down the international financial system to them." The Bush's administration's game of bullying and deceptive negotiation tactics was confirmed further when Rice stated: "I think we're in a much stronger position to go to a neighbours meeting". Yes Rice, the Arab world will love you for bullying one of their neighbours into refusing to talk with them. Threats and lack of communication are a great way to win trust and cooperation. We suggest that Europe the rest of the U.N. stop taking concessions from Bush and instead read up on how to spot and counter deceptive negotiation tactics. Would this help? Probably not. The politicians are too deep into oil money to care about the longer term impact of their current negotiations.

We would also like to invite Rice, Bush, Cheney to put the guns away, and instead read this elementary Top 5 Tips to Negotiating Effectively.

So in answer to the question: "Can diplomatic negotiations resolve this deadlock?" our answer is: the Bush administration refuses to engage in diplomatic negotiations, so the world may never get to find out what could have been.

Doesn't the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Protect us?

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty allows for the enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes. Under this treaty, Iran is doing nothing wrong. Iran claims that it is enriching uranium in order to produce nuclear power.

  • India and Pakistan do have nuclear weapons, yet neither are signatories.
  • Israel is also not a signatory to the treaty. Israel haven't confirmed or denied accusations that they have the bomb. (We leave you to draw your own conclusions)

So not only does the treaty not help protect us, but the same countries who are now wagging their fingers at Iran are turning a blind eye on the treaty when it suits them.

Can you make nukes from oil?

In a word: "No". So how does a developing country whose exports comprise 80% oil with most of the remaining 20% consisting of chemical petroleum related products suddenly know how to enrich uranium? Lets ask Russia. Most of the nuclear technology obtained by Iran is being provided by Russia (and Halliburton). Russia has been doing so since 1995, under the full knowledge of the USA government. If Iran is dependent on their Russian nuclear contract to supposedly build the bomb, why aren't the Bush administration and the United Nations exerting more pressure on Russia to stop providing this technology? That would seem to us to be the simple solution.

Furthermore, Russia has supplied Iran with an extensive amount of highly sophisticated military equipment such as 29 Tor-M1 anti-missile systems, T-72 tanks, diesel submarines, sophisticated naval mines, and Mi-29 and SU-24 aircraft. This has been ongoing for the past 10 years. Were Bush and his negotiators and diplomats sleeping during all this time? Of course they weren't, they just weren't bothered. Iran hasn't made it onto their black gold acquisition agenda until recently.

We believe that Bush has always been able to and still can persuade Russia to stop supplying Iran with nuclear enrichment technology. What would happen next? Russia's significant long term Iranian financial interests would suffer, and India, Pakistan or China would waste no time completing the Russian contract. So Putin would expect Uncle Sam to compensate him in a major way for these losses. Bush isn't prepared or perhaps capable of doing this. In reality the bomb is of course nothing more than a hyped up Bush media excuse to help him get his hands on yet more Arab black gold.

Head for the nuclear fall-out bunker!

So how long before we need to put the finishing touches to our nuclear fallout bunkers in the basement? At least 2 to 5 years. A multitude of nuclear experts agree that even if Iran intends on making the bomb, they are at least 2-5 years away for being able to do so.

Although there's no clear proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability, the Bush administration, Israel and many of their allies fear such a nuclear capability is not only likely, but inevitable. So why all of a sudden the Bush administration's international rally to halt Iran's inevitable acquisition of nuclear bomb capabilities?

What's the colour of Bush's money?

Black of course. There are several key and closely related reasons beneath Bush and his lackey Chaney (or is the relationship the other way around?) wanting to bomb the devil out of Teheran. Let's look under the rock and see what lurks:

War with Iran = Oil + more Oil = $Billions in Profits

oil rig explosionIran is a big threat - economically. Iran is in direct competition with Bush's sponsoring oil companies. Along with China, Russia, and India, there are an estimated 124 publicly-traded European businesses which have forged strong oil and economic interests in Iran. This has shut out Bush's oil buddies from reaping big profits with Iran's export trade partner countries. The European Union alone gets some 40% of Iran's import spending, the majority of which is spent on Iran's energy and telecom sectors.

The USA and Allies won the war in Iraq but are clearly losing the peace. Iraq, despite boasting the world's second largest oil reserves teeters on the verge of civil sectarian war as USA casualties continue to mount. The Democrats, with potential incumbent president hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have made it clear they want to bring the troops home. Time is quickly running out for Bush and his oil cartel sponsors to cash in on their black gold plunder. If they're going to attack Iran to secure their oil in Iraq, speed is of the essence.

Iran's support of insurgents in Iraq has indirectly resulted in Bush's oil sponsors losing their political support back at home for army and private security company protection. Without this expensive protection (expensive to the USA taxpayer, but completely free to Bush's oil buddies!), Bush's oil tycoons can't continue to loot Iraq's rich oil reserves. This would mean Bush's Oil buddies (the same companies who bank rolled Bush into office in his last 2 elections) losing tens of billions in oil revenues.

Snatch and Grab - Bush and his Oil Buddies Want ALL the Toys

Iran is the 4th largest producer of oil, boasting roughly 9% of the world's total oil reserves. The Bush and Cheney duet along with their oil consortium pals want it!

Is Bush worried that someone else will beat him to Iran's rich oil reserves? Definitely. The USA is the worlds biggest oil and gas guzzler. The USA consumes 20,030,000 barrels of oil every day. The second biggest consumer of oil is China at 6,391,000 barrels per day, and rising fast. (See how the oil guzzlers rate - Oil consumption by country) So China's negotiated oil deal with Iran locks Bush's oil Baron buddies out of the party. With total world oil consumption doubling every ten years, world oil domination will continue to loom large for Bush and his oil sponsors.

An interesting detail is the fact that most of Iran's oil reserves are very near the Iraqi border. Very easy for Bush to get to. Easier still to wrestle from Iranian control when they're defending their capital (Tehran) up north. All eyes would be on the media lead (similar to the Iraqi war) uranium enrichment plant bombings and Tehran, and few foreigners would notice Iran's south western oil field jewel being snatched and plundered. So another smash and grab job could easily net Bush's oil buddies tens of billions more. Remind you of Iraq? Of course the "snatch" would be bank rolled once again by the American tax payer, and the "grab" would be suffered by the Iranians (the overwhelming majority of whom are not benefiting from their countries rich oil exports anyhow).

Quiz: What does the Bush administration have in common with each other?

The Bush administration is the first in history where the President, Vice President and Secretary of State are all former energy company officials. In fact, the only other U.S. President to come from the oil and gas industry was Bush's father. Moreover, both George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have more experience running oil companies than they do working in government. In the 2000 election cycle the oil and gas industry donated 13 times more money to Bush's campaign than to Al Gore's.

Iraq wasn't invaded, Iraq was Incorporated

Need more convincing of where the Bush administration's allegiance lies? Check out the following quotes to get an inside perspective of the bitter oily taste of what is really going on in Iraq.

Iraq sand graves

The Bush Agenda - Iraq Incorporated

"In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration-wrote, "The USA invasion of Iraq was not pre-emption; it was ... an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages.

...it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed significantly to the disastrous results of the war."

L. Paul Bremer, the head of the USA occupation government of Iraq intended to "transition [Iraq] from a centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by USA fiat.

Bremer's orders included firing the entire Iraqi military-some half a million men-in the first weeks of the occupation. Suddenly jobless, many of these men joined the violent counter insurgency. Bremer also dismissed 120,000 of Iraq's senior bureaucrats from every government ministry. Iraq's state-owned enterprises were privatised (excluding oil). American companies received preferential treatment over Iraqis in the awarding of reconstruction contracts. The laws allowed foreign firms to own 100 percent of Iraqi businesses (as opposed to partnering with Iraqi firms). Profits were made without having to invest a cent in the Iraqi economy. Iraqi laws governing banking, foreign investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media, agriculture and trade were all changed to conform to USA goals.

After the USA corporate invasion of Iraq

More than 150 USA companies have been given contracts for post-war work worth more than $50 billion.

American companies were hired, even though Iraqi companies had successfully rebuilt the country after the previous USA invasion. As the American companies did not have to hire Iraqis, many imported foreign workers instead.

America's Biggest Foreign "Investment" - Israel

Since its inception as a nation in 1948, Israel has remained a major ally of the United States in the Middle East. Israel has provided military muscle in the Middle East backed by USA military aid and training. Israel is also a major source of intelligence for what's transpiring in the back yards of the Middle East.

After Iran's President Ahmadinejad's recent rhetoric concerning the "annihilation of the State of Israel", a poll revealed that 27% Israeli's would consider leaving Israel if Iran acquired the nuclear bomb. (Following international condemnation, Iran has since stated that they will not attack Israel or any other country)

What's Israel Worth to the USA?

Despite Israel being a small country - containing only one one-thousandth of the world's population (7 million), Israel receives a staggering 40% of all USA foreign aid. Direct annual "aid" to Israel in recent years has exceeded $3.5 billion. A donation that has received near unanimously support in Congress. That's a whopping $500 per Israeli that the USA taxpayer donates, every year.

The USA has a significant financial stake in Israel and has no intention of letting its massive investment be threatened.

How does the Bush Administration Profit from Attacking Iran?

world oil export by country War is big business. If the Bush administration sets fire to Iran, what can we predict with certainty? Oil Prices will rocket through the roof. Who laughs all the way to the bank? Yes, the oil companies that bank rolled Bush into office - but who else?

Halliburton! Halliburton provides products and services for oil and gas exploration. Halliburton's head office is based in Houston Texas, coincidentally the same city Bush was raised in, the same state Bush was governor of. The interesting part is that 2 subsidiary companies of Halliburton make a tidy profit from doing business with Iran:

  • KBR is a major construction company for chemical plants, pipelines, refineries and oil fields.
  • Halliburton Products and Services. Conveniently registered in the Cayman Islands. No office, just 1 member of staff. Mail is forwarded back to Houston. 60 Minutes' investigation discovered the Halliburton offshore smoke screen to be in clear contravention of the USA law.

The Arab press have reported that Halliburton sold key nuclear reactor components to Iran.

Halliburton was run by the current Vice President incumbent Dick Cheney as Chairman and CEO from 1995 - 2000. Prior to his tenure with Halliburton, Cheney was Secretary of Defence from March 1989 till January of 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. Dick Cheney still holds shares in Halliburton worth roughly about $8 million - no conflict of interest here, is there?

How much might Haliburton stand to gain from say, a war with Iran? Let's take a quick look at how Halliburton's profited from the Iraq war to get an idea.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform USA House of Representatives December 9, 2004

Fact Sheet: Halliburton's Iraq Contracts Now Worth over $10 Billion

The value of Halliburton's Iraq contracts has crossed the $10 billion threshold. Halliburton has now received $8.3 billion in Iraq work under its LOGCAP troop support contract and $2.5 billion under its no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract, a total of $10.8 billion.

When we connect the dots, we may be inclined to think this too much of a coincidence. Dick Cheney stands to gain directly and indirectly from a war with Iran and a continued "involvement" in (or rather exploitation of) Iraq.

Can other American Companies Profit from Iran?

Not a chance! USA companies are barred from doing business with Tehran, and a law passed in congress in 1996 allows Washington to penalise foreign firms engaged in commerce with the Islamic republic of Iran.

So this means that no USA oil companies operate in Iran? Right? Wrong! There is one USA oil company operating in Iran. This company is of course Vice-President Dick Cheney's former company - Halliburton. Halliburton's Deal with Iran consists of a contract worth an estimated $308 million to develop the Iranian South Pars natural gas fields. Halliburton is the only USA company known to be operating in Iran. Clearly, Halliburton must have some goods friends in high places.

globe map of iran Who's Invited to the Iranian Oil Party?

The U.N. and European member nations mouth their support for sanctions and negotiations, but how serious are they, and what's top of their agendas? You probably don't need reminding that money is what makes the political world go around. A war with Iran would hurt the bank accounts of many "Allies" of the USA.

Many European companies have made big investments in Iran. Trade between Iran and countries such as France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the rest of the European Union reached more than $25.85bn in 2005. European banks have given Iran slightly less than $18 billion dollars in loan guarantees in 2006

European Union: Between 2003 and 2005, European exports to Iran rose 29 percent to 12.9 billion Euros. Much of the trade involved sales of machinery, transport equipment and chemicals. On the other hand European imports from Iran, mainly in the form of oil imports, increased 62 percent to €11.4 billion in this period. Additionally, Europe has also invested heavily in Iranian oil, gas, mining automotive, transportation and communications companies. The European Union is Iran's main supplier of goods, comprising up to 44 percent of Iran's total imports.

Germany: The German government insures (through export guarantee programs) approximately 65% of total German exports to Iran. This amounts to around €5.5 billion of export guarantees. This makes it "safe" for German companies to do business with potentially risky Iran.

Italy: Italy provides for around €4.5 billion of export guarantees.

France: The French government provides for €1 billion in export guarantees.

Austria: The Austrian government also guarantees about €800 million of exports to Iran.

Spain: A preliminary $10 billion deal was recently signed between the National Iranian Oil Company, Royal Dutch Shell and Repsol of Spain.

China: China signed a deal with Iran to purchase an estimated $70 - $100 billion worth of oil and gas and an additional $20 billion dollar deal to purchase liquefied natural gas over the next quarter century.

The USA stands to alienate many allies if the Bush administration declares war on Iran. The UN negotiations that led to the Bush administration winning support for sanctions were for these reasons long and arduous - 2 months long to be precise, and they're still going on - right now. Many concessions were made by Bush's delegation to win votes.

You can keep your Dollars

The Bush administration is trying to dissuade its European allies from conducting business with Iranian banks. European financial institutions are barred from performing financial transactions in dollars. To side step this restriction, European investors have simply switched currencies to the Euro. Since the Euro is outperforming the dollar the result has acted as an added boost for the Iranian economy, and hurt the already weak USD. Well done President Bush!

The Big Ugly Threatening Monster under Bush's Bed

bush blows the world up How dangerous is Iran as a military threat? Do you really think its leaders have misjudged the fact that a nuclear war would spell a holocaust to all Iranians? It's no secret that the USA nuclear arsenal would spell the end of time for any nuclear aggressor. We believe the Iranian leaders are very aware of what is at stake. We should be careful not to mistake commonplace political rhetoric in the Middle East for real intentions.

Although rich in oil, the people of Iran are not very prosperous. A member of OPEC, Iran does have one vital weak spot. Over 80% of the Iran's exports are based on petroleum. A war between Iran and the USA would make these exports extremely vulnerable and cause considerable harm to the Iranian people and their economy. So the biggest losers of a Bush and oil buddy's war would be the Iranian people.

Sanctions, but not as we know it

Sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Iran do not include Iran's all powerful petroleum industry which is the primary economic nexus and responsible for over 80% of Iran's foreign exchange revenue. How can the U.N. impose sanctions and yet leave Irans ability to earn forex intact? Surely this isn't really sanctions?

Take a look at how well the Iranian economy is faring:

"The Council on Foreign Relations reported Economists as saying the Iranian government, which oversees 7% of the world's oil reserves, has failed to redistribute this windfall of energy profits. Yet Torbat (a sanctions expert at the California State University) says Iran's economy is not faring poorly when compared to its Middle Eastern neighbours. After all, annual growth hovers around 5 to 6%, Iran has $60 billion in foreign exchange reserves, and it boasts a current accounts surplus (exports exceed imports). Unemployment figures (officially 10% but probably closer to 30%) are also on par with the region."

In short, the U.N. has not yet imposed any real sanctions on Iran - it would hurt their member's states interests far too much. As a result, Iran has yet to feel the pinch of sanctions.

What's Iran's secret of success for clinching first place in the Axis of Evil?

The Bush administration, in a shift of negotiating tactics, accused Iran of lending support to insurgents in Iraq. They also accuse Iran of giving support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinians. We think that Iran are almost definitely providing this support. Given that Iran has long been labelled as a leading member of the "axis of evil", and Bush has stationed heavy air intensive military right in Iran's back yard, is it any wonder the Iranians are attacking USA troops where they can, and puffing out their chests in defiance? What would you do in Iran's position?

There is no doubt the Iranians have taken sides and are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Bush's war machine. To understand why, we need to remind ourselves of recent history.

  • The war crimes of Saddam Hussein against the Iranians throughout the 1980s is well documented. What is not well known is that these campaigns of genocide were committed with the full knowledge and support of the Regan administration. Why? Iran was backed by the then Soviet Union.
  • There is strong evidence that Iran is supporting Shiite Militias in Iraq. Bush has backed the ruling Shiite government. Only about 32% of Iraqi's are Sunni - Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. This minority Sunni's group feel exposed and betrayed. To a large extent, Iraq is experiencing a classic clash of the 2 major tribes, stirred up in part by Bush's Iraq government engineering.
  • The Iranian - Iraqi border, which was previously secure under Saddam Hussein, has now become extremely porous since the Bush led invasion of Iraq. Since the invasion, a massive stockpile of armaments and terrorists have been pouring through the Iraqi borders, turning the streets of Baghdad into a blood bath war zone. It's small wonder the Iraqis want Bush's troops out.

So with the Bush administration's finger being so stained with Iranian blood (past present and future), we find it ironic to hear Bush calling Iranians "Evil".

What Can YOU Do?

The Bush administration could easily begin negotiations with Iran if it chooses to. This would mark the end of over a quarter of a century of American supported war on, and hostility against Iran. Sadly, the last thing the Bush administration wants is a peacefully negotiated outcome in the Middle East. War with Iran would make the world a far more dangerous place for all. The misadventure of the Bush administration in Iraq did more to recruit al-Qaeda than Bin Laden could hope to achieve in five lifetimes. War offers massive profits for Bush and his oil cronies. We hope that American tax payers are sick of footing Bush's war bill. War with Iran is all about oil money. If a war was to occur, we believe it should be dubbed the "Scary Movie: Another Bloody Oil War ". Fortunately the EU's foreign policy chief was reported on Sunday 25 March 2007 as saying that he wished to schedule discussions with Tehran.

fuel globe The world is overly dependant on 3 dirty and blood drenched commodities - oil, gas and coal. The oil companies, have in the past, seen to it that our dependancy will not be replaced with environmentally friendly energy alternatives. Imagine for a moment if you were in charge of your own power source. What would happen if politicians and far away country despots were unable to dictate the prices at the pump? Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan (which was a premeditated war allowing the much delayed construction of an oil pipeline into Western Europe) and so many other wars would lose their "fuel". So what would our tax dollars be spent on? How much more would we be able to save, instead of lining the overly heavy pockets of politicians and their oil sponsors? We would like to humbly suggest you arm yourself with more facts, facts of how you can do even more to save our planet. We can stop wars and put an end to the greenhouse gas problems through fighting public enemy number 1 - the oil and gas companies, and the handful of banking families who enjoin in the profiteering of war.

  1. The Case for Bargaining With Iran - Washington Post
  2. Iran Softens Tone, Declares Readiness To Resume Talks - Washington Post
  3. How to deal with Iran? - News24
  4. The Bush Administration Avoids Peace (Again) - OpEdNews
  5. US-Iran ties - BBC News
  6. The Iran Plans - The New Yorker
  7. Iran - CIA - The World Factbook
  8. Iran's New Alliance With China Could Cost U.S. Leverage - Washington Post
  9. Europe resisting U.S. pressure on Iran - International Herald Tribune
  10. France Steps Up Its Investments in Iran - CorpWatch
  11. US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites - The Telegraph
  12. $10b deal between Shell, Spain's Reposal and Iran may spark US sanctions - Albawaba
  13. Iran Launches Large-Scale War Games Ahead of U.N. Deadline - FOXNews
  14. Doing Business With The Enemy - CBS News
  15. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries - Energy Information Administration
  16. Iran, Russia and the New Muslim States - K. Katzman
  17. Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come - by Jorge Hirsch
  18. U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil - International Socialist Review
  19. Iran Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis - Oil, Gas, Electricity, Coal - Energy Information Administration
  20. Halliburton provided Iran with key nuclear reactor components - Al Jazeera
  21. US prepared list of targets in Iran - Allawaba
  22. $10b deal between Shell, Spain's Reposal and Iran may spark US sanctions - Allawaba
  23. Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue - BBC News
  24. Organization of the Petrol Exporting Countries - OPEC
  25. US drumbeat against Iran threatens new war of aggression - World Socialist Web Site
  26. Tehran alarm over US tough talk - BBC News
  27. Quick guide: Iran nuclear stand-off - BBC News
  28. Nuclear War against Iran - Global Research
  29. Will U.S. and Iran talk? - International Herald Tribune
  30. Position Negotiation Q&A - The Negotiation Experts
  31. Deceptive Negotiation Gambits and Counter Measures - The Negotiations Experts
  32. Windfalls of War - The Center for Public Integrity - Public Integrity
  33. "Iran: Time is Running Out" by Tashbih Sayyed - Islam Watch
  34. Terror Watch: Halliburton's Deal with Iran - Newsweek National News - MSNBC
  35. It's All About Oil! - What Really Happened
  36. EU to seek new Iran nuclear talks - BBC

Reader Comments

Average Rating:

Total Comments: 2

View or Write a comment

Back to Negotiation Articles

We welcome the republication of this page's contents in part or full - we just ask that you include a clean link back to this site, to our www.negotiationtraining.com.au/training/ page.

Reader Comments

Average Reader Rating:       Comments: 2

share your comment

3 of 4 people found the following comment useful:

Evidence and Accountability - 2008 Nov 14
Commentator: Calum Coburn (Australia - New South Wales)

"To the reviewer from Indiana who refers to themselves as 'Barack Obama':
This article is researched, quoting facts and offering reasoned substantiated arguments together with a long list of references.

In answer to your question about Bush's oil links - please do some research. The evidence of Bush' executive posts being to former oil execs is plentiful. Start with Dick Cheney - Halliburton former CEO & current shareholder. See 20 & 34 above, plus the many other references to Cheney above. Looks like you didn't read this article in full.

To reviewers: please have the character to use your real name"

Useful Comment? Vote

3 of 7 people found the following comment useful:

What's up with that? - 2008 Nov 14
Commentator: 'Barack Obama' (United States - Indiana)

"I'm a little late in writing this review but, oh well, I need to get it out there anyway.

So, your link to how Bush pronounces nuclear also points out that Clinton messed it up half the time. So, you just paint Bush bad because it is easier than explaining that other major leaders have messed it up too?

Also, you seem to have a link for everything on this page, except for anything about "Bush and his Oil Buddies". Who are these "oil buddies"? Why isn't there a link for them?"

Useful Comment? Vote

Negotiation Newsletter