Why is the US targeting Iran? An abundance of reasons
by Jim Fetzer
The situation with Iran is completely absurd–unless there is a hidden motive. Iran poses no military threat to the United States. Iran has not attacked any other country for more than 300 years. It has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It allows inspectors. In 2007, 16 US intel agencies converged in the opinion that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons–an opinion they reaffirmed in 2011. The Supreme Leader of Iran has declared, “Nuclear energy for all; nuclear weapons for none”, which is the policy of the nation. Whatever the motive for targeting Iran, it is not the development of nukes.
If the issue were the possession of nuclear weapons, then we should be looking in another direction. Israel has 200-600 or more of these little beauties. Israel has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel will not allow inspectors. Israel runs the largest concentration camp in the world in Palestine–and is known for the brutality of its treatment of the Palestinian people, where Israel Defense Forces are known for their practice of randomly shooting young Palestinian children. If there is a nuclear threat in the Middle East, that threat comes from Israel, not Iran.
Moreover, one country appears to be using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which is not Iran but the United States. Dr. Christopher Busby, an expert on connections between cancer and birth-defects in relation to the use of nuclear weapons, has concluded, based upon his study of anomalies in Fallujah, that the US has deployed a new type of nuclear weapon, probably a neutron bomb, in Iraq. While he came to the region in the expectation that he would discover the birth defects that have become so prevalent there–where 75% of live births suffer from serious genetic abnormalities–was from the use of depleted uranium weapons, what he found was far more alarming: they were caused, not by DU, but by enriched uranium from the use of a new class of weapons.
US USED SOME NEW TYPE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON IN FALLUJAH: IRAN IS NOT THE NUCLEAR THREAT
Since Israel has a vast stockpile and Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, any concerns about them ought to be directed at Israel, not Iran. A more likely explanation, therefore, is that the peaceful development of nuclear energy is the real problem, where Iran has the potential to produce nuclear fuel rods at a fraction of the cost of those produced by the US nuclear energy industry. This consideration is not even mentioned much less discussed in the mass media in the United States, even though, upon reflection, the US industry must be panic-stricken over the prospect that Iran is virtually certain to dominate the global marked for nuclear fuel rods and drive the US industry to bankruptcy. But there may be yet another consideration that makes an even greater difference, which also related to energy and has nothing to do with oil.
The Stirling Engine
A friend of mine wrote me today telling me that, “about 50 years ago, I knew an Iranian student in college and he told me this big ‘secret’ his country was working on, he said it was a stirling engine, no intake and no exhaust, would run from any heat source, he said it would run if you just pissed on it—point is, Iran is so far ahead in development of this engine technology that no one can compete with them, so, I guess their economy has to be destroyed, otherwise they would be the leading energy provider for the world.”
The suggestion sounds a bit far-fetched until you appreciate that, as he explained, gasoline engines are 30% efficient, at best, meaning 70% of heat is lost. Stirling engines are 90% plus efficient from any fuel and can use solar, gasoline, diesel, coal, LP gas, steam or thermal water deposits and even cooling towers from nuclear plants. Iran’s focus on this technology caught the west flatfooted and not energy competitive, a very big no, no. . . . In brief, the stirling engine concept would free the world from ‘oil’ dependence and make Iran the major player in the world’s energy market–a big, big problem for the west.
Indeed, what he has told me is borne out even by entries in commonplace sources such as Wikipedia:
Main article: Regenerative heat exchanger
In a Stirling engine, the regenerator is an internal heat exchanger and temporary heat store placed between the hot and cold spaces such that the working fluid passes through it first in one direction then the other. Its function is to retain within the system that heat which would otherwise be exchanged with the environment at temperatures intermediate to the maximum and minimum cycle temperatures, thus enabling the thermal efficiency of the cycle to approach the limiting Carnot efficiency defined by those maxima and minima.
The primary effect of regeneration in a Stirling engine is to increase the thermal efficiency by ‘recycling’ internal heat which would otherwise pass through the engine irreversibly. As a secondary effect, increased thermal efficiency yields a higher power output from a given set of hot and cold end heat exchangers. It is these which usually limit the engine’s heat throughput. In practice this additional power may not be fully realized as the additional “dead space” (unswept volume) and pumping loss inherent in practical regenerators reduces the potential efficiency gains from regeneration.
The design challenge for a Stirling engine regenerator is to provide sufficient heat transfer capacity without introducing too much additional internal volume (‘dead space’) or flow resistance. These inherent design conflicts are one of many factors which limit the efficiency of practical Stirling engines. A typical design is a stack of fine metal wire meshes, with low porosity to reduce dead space, and with the wire axes perpendicular to the gas flow to reduce conduction in that direction and to maximize convective heat transfer.
The regenerator is the key component invented by Robert Stirling and its presence distinguishes a true Stirling engine from any other closed cycle hot air engine. Many small ‘toy’ Stirling engines, particularly low-temperature difference (LTD) types, do not have a distinct regenerator component and might be considered hot air engines, however a small amount of regeneration is provided by the surface of displacer itself and the nearby cylinder wall, or similarly the passage connecting the hot and cold cylinders of an alpha configuration engine.
Further substantiation–albeit indirect–comes from the extensive array of CCGT power plants, which appear to incorporate stirling engines in their towers. Notice the absence of the kinds of cooling units ordinarily associated with power plants, where these instead are designed to capture energy to an extent that they are neither needed nor desired:
By designating Iran as a “terrorist state”, the US is not legally bound to recognizes its patents and legal claims to its own inventions. If there is a bombing of Iran, you can bet it will be on these CCGT power plants rather than on any alleged “nuclear facilities”. This is another case of “big lies” coming from the American government to benefit the profit margins of US corporations.
An Abundance of Reasons
What this alternative provides is another explanation that goes beyond what we have been told by our own government–which, of course, is hardly surprising, since it lies about everything of importance, from the assassination to JFK to the atrocities of 9/11 to the fabricated events of Aurora and Sandy Hook. Were I to enumerate a list of reasons why the US continues to target Iran, even though it poses no military risk, especially from nuclear weapons, then the most important considerations would appear to be:
(1) that Iran abandoned the petro-dollar for trade in multiple currencies, which has been described as a “weapon of mass destruction of a very different kind“, of which the American public only dimly grasps:
It began in 2005, when Iran announced it would form its own International Oil Bourse (IOB), the first phase of which opened in 2008. The IOB is an international exchange that allows international oil, gas, and petroleum products to be traded using a basket of currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Then in November 2007 at a major OPEC meeting, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for a “credible and good currency to take over U.S. dollar’s role and to serve oil trades”. He also called the dollar “a worthless piece of paper.” The following month, Iran—consistently ranked as either the third or fourth biggest oil producer in the world—announced that it had requested all payments for its oil be made in currencies other than dollars.
The latest round of U.S. sanctions targets countries that do business with Iran’s Central Bank, which, combined with the U.S. and EU oil embargoes, should in theory shut down Iran’s ability to export oil and thus force it to abandon its nuclear program by crippling its economy. But instead, Iran is successfully negotiating oil sales via accepting gold, individual national currencies like China’s renmimbi, and direct bartering.
Other countries that have abandoned the petro-dollar have also not fared well in their relations with the United States, including Iraq in late 2000 and Libya introduced the gold dinar in 2011. It isn’t rocket science to infer that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the bombing of Libya have followed in their wake:
Since gold yuan coinage was announced by China, talks about the gold standard had been brought up in the Middle East. The main initiator of non-payment in dollars and euros is the Leader and Guide of the Revolution in Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He called on Arab and African world to adopt a single current – the gold dinar.
On this financial basis, Colonel Gaddafi offered to create a single African state with Arab and Black African population numbering 200 million people. The idea of creating a single gold currency and uniting the countries of Africa into one powerful federal system has been actively supported during the last year by a number of Arabic and almost all African states. Democracy-infested South Africa and the Arab League were opposed to the idea.
The US and the EU reacted very negatively to such a initiative. According to a French Zio “president” Sarkozy, “the Libyans have set on the financial security of mankind.” Repeated calls by the Leader of the Libyan Revolution yields some results: Gaddafi has made more and more steps aimed at creating a United Africa.
Two false arguments have been invented to cover up the true reason for the present Zio-Christian Crusade against Libya: officially – “to defend human rights” and unofficially – an attempt to steal oil from the Libyan people. Both of these arguments do not hold up to scrutiny. The truth is that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi decided to repeat the attempts by French General de Gaulle to abandon the use of U.S. junk paper money called “dollars” and return to gold, i.e. he attempts to attack the chief power of modern parasitic Zio Democracy – the banking system.
(2) that Iran threatens the US nuclear energy industry with its potential to produce nuclear fuel rods at a fraction of the cost and is expected to dominate the international market is one dimension of the energy threat, where the development of the stirling engine appears to represent another. If my friend is right in what he has told me, then the situation is as hypocritical as it could possibly be, because the threat is not remotely military but rather economic, where the benefits that may come to the world from emancipation from its dependents upon gas and oil poses the most serious kind of threat that the gas and oil industry has ever known. Just as Gaddafi was benefitting the people of Libya and promoting the best interests of the African continent, Iran has the potential to benefit the people of the world–but at immense cost to the profit margin of the gas and oil industry, which suggests the real reasons why the US is targeting Iran.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a journalist and editor for Veterans Today.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=240032