So today, the US, and company, presented Iran with their revised proposal and a little bit of bribery to get them to stop enriching uranium. Why? Because they told US that if we attack Tehran, they would pull the world's oil supply off the market - jacking the prices of the remaining exporters up to $200-300/barrel. Right now, it's at $70, and we're spanning $4.00/gal in California to $2.60/gal in Georgia for gasoline. Cutting that off, would throw gas up to $12-24/gallon.
But they're not the first to play that card. Just a few days ago, it was suggested on a news interview that I saw, that we place a blockade on their oil and not import it if they don't succomb. What sucks is when we can't enforce a threat, and they turn the threat around back on us.
On CNN tonight, on the Glenn Beck show, there was an interview with a CIA representative, who described the terms of the deal concerning Iran to be in an apocolyptic sense - i.e. the only solution for Iran's world-wide pullback of oil, and their threat to blow up the oil fields, would be to attack them with Nuclear Weapons. He also believes that we will be in conflict with Iran within the next 12 months...(which right on the timeframe that I've been looking at for the past 10+ years).
And then just today, insurgents have taken over the capital of Somolia, and ousted the fledgling UN-backed goverment there. So now, President Bush will be discussing how to handle that situation, saying that it "cannot become a breeding ground for terrorists to plot and plan."
I think in the coming days I might list the "signs" of the time, and correlate them to the current events that we're seeing unfold before us. Should be an interesting thing to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment