2278.一神教同士の戦い



一神教同士の戦いでどういう同盟関係構築ができるか、米国とイラ
ンのつばぜり合いが見物である。    Fより

欧米+スンニ派対シーア派+パレスチナ+中国の戦いに持ち込める
か、この体制になるためには、パレスチナをスンニ派が諦められる
か、はたまたパレスチナとイスラエル・米国が和解するか、または
スンニ派がシーア派と連合してキリスト教徒と対決するか??

それに中国がイラン加担が明白で、米国は中国抑制でインドに近づ
いている。ロシアは欧米に着くのか、シーア派に着くのか明白でな
い。明白にしないプーチンの戦略眼は凄いと思う。現時点、モスク
ワを訪問しているパレスチナのハマス代表とロシアがどういう話し
合いをするかが注目ポイントである。

そして、イラクではスンニ派とシーア派の分裂が決定的になってい
る。事実上の内戦状況に移行している。中東地域のスンニ派とシー
ア派の分裂は確定した。しかし、この分裂を米国が仕掛けていると
も見えるのです。米国はスンニ派のサダムフセインを倒してシーア
派を解放したが、今度はシーア派を抑制する必要が出てきている。
全体的な戦略性のなさを示しているが、今後は欧州も米国を支持し
ている。

そして、この戦いは全地球的・地政学的に考える必要があるのに、
日本の評論家にその視点がない。どうしようもない才能なしの評論
家しかいない不幸ですね。中国対決の合理的な理由を日本は獲得で
きるのに、その視点がないために機会を逃している。

日本はモッタキ・イラン外相からけん制されるし、米国では港湾業
務をスンニ派のUAE企業に任せるかで揉めている。もし、UAE
の企業に任せないと、スンニ派との同盟関係を米国としても築けな
い。

すると、イスラム圏対キリスト圏という図式ができて、一神教間対
決となり、イスラム教徒全員との対決になり、欧米・日本としても
相当の経済的な被害を覚悟しないとできない。石油地域のほとんど
がイスラム教地域にあり、その輸出が止まると世界経済は停止する
ことになる。

このように一神教間対決はハルマゲドンを成立させることになる。
この一神教間対決に持つ込まないように米国ライス国務長官は活躍
している。日本では米ライスを正当に評価する評論家が少ないが、
世界人類の危害を止められるかどうかは、今のライス国務長官の動
き如何にかかっている。これに比べるとヒラリー・クリントンの港
湾業務のUAE企業参入反対はいかに、世界を見ていないかを示し
ている。このことで世界戦略に理解がないヒラリー・クリントンの
大統領の目はなくなったように感じる。

中国対応をどうして、米国はしているかというと、イラン支援を行
う中国に警告するためであるが、これに対して中国は国内での海外
企業締め出しで、応戦している。しかし、それでは米国は益々怒ら
すことになる。機を見るに敏な台湾の陳総統は勝負に出ている。
「国家統一綱領」を事実上廃止して、中国の反発を誘っている。

中国問題は明日、検討する。
==============================
イラン、英独仏と平行線 ウラン濃縮で外相級会合(ASAHI)
2006年03月03日23時40分

 イランの核問題を扱う6日からの国際原子力機関(IAEA)定
例理事会を前に、英独仏とイランは3日、ウィーン市内で外相級会
合を開いた。核兵器開発にもつながるウラン濃縮活動の中止を英独
仏が迫ったのに対し、イラン側は継続を主張。双方の立場の違いは
大きいままで、土壇場の協議でも進展はなかった。 

 イラン側は核交渉責任者、ラリジャニ最高安全保障委員会事務局
長が出席。国内でウラン濃縮を行うとの従来の主張を繰り返したの
に対し、英独仏側は「研究開発」を含めた濃縮関連活動の即時停止
が交渉再開の前提条件だと主張、話し合いは平行線のまま終わった。 

 協議後、記者会見したドストブラジ仏外相は「(イラン側が前向
きな行動をとらなければ、)この問題は近く安保理で議論されるこ
とになるだろう」と述べた。 

 イランはウラン濃縮の合弁事業をめぐるロシアとの交渉を続ける
一方、英独仏とも話し合う姿勢を示すことで、IAEA理事会での
批判を弱め、国連安保理での経済制裁を含む強制措置に向けた動き
を防ぐ狙いがあったとみられる。 
==============================
イラン外相、核問題制裁で日本の同調けん制
(nikkei)
 来日中のモッタキ・イラン外相は1日、都内で日本経済新聞記者と
会見し、同国の核開発問題に関連して「友好関係が経済協力の基盤
」と強調した。外相の発言は米国が検討する対イラン制裁に日本が
同調しないようけん制、制裁に参加すれば油田開発などの経済協力
を見直す可能性を示唆した格好だ。

 外相は「ブッシュ米大統領の政策は危機を管理できず新たな危機
を招いているだけだ」と指摘、米主導の対イラン制裁が発動されて
も効果はないとの認識を示した。 (07:01) 
==============================
石油禁輸 国家備蓄を放出 政府方針 イラン「核」制裁で(産経新聞)
 政府は二日、イランの核開発問題で、経済制裁措置の一環として
石油禁輸措置が検討されているのを受けて、禁輸措置が発動された
場合、石油の国家備蓄を放出する方針を固めた。これまでの緊急事
態は民間備蓄の放出で対応してきたが、国家備蓄が放出されれば初
のケースとなる。イランに対し禁輸措置が実施される事態になると
、石油輸入量の15%(年間二億三千万バレル)を同国に頼る日本
経済への打撃は計り知れない。
 政府は外務省や経済産業省などを中心に、経済制裁が発動された
場合、石油の安定供給策や国内経済や世界経済に与える影響の検討
に着手している。制裁措置としては、イランの重要な外貨獲得源に
なっている石油の輸出禁止措置をはじめ、政府間の交流制限、旅券
発給停止、駐イラン大使館員の引き揚げ、国内資産の凍結などが検
討課題になる見通しだ。
 政府は、わが国が石油輸入の九割弱を中東地域に依存しているた
め、エネルギー安全保障の観点から、輸入国を他の地域に広げるこ
とや新エネルギー開発なども改めて検討課題とする方針だ。
 政府内には、日本企業が権益の75%を確保しているアザデガン
油田をイラン国内に抱えているため、対イラン制裁に慎重論もある。
 しかし、同盟国の米国がイランの核開発阻止で断固たる措置を取
ると表明していることやイラク戦争で米国と対立したフランスやド
イツも今回は同調していることから、国際協調を重視すべきだとの
声が強い。
 イランは世界の石油生産量のうち5・1%(日量四百八万バレル
)を占めているが、禁輸措置が取られた場合でも、イランから石油
を輸入していない米国や、依存度が低い欧州諸国への影響は、わが
国に比べると少ないとみられている。
 石油の備蓄は、石油備蓄法で義務付けられており、国家備蓄九十
日分(約三億二千万バレル)と民間備蓄八十二日分(約二億七千万
バレル)がある。平成二年の湾岸危機と昨年の米国南部を襲ったハ
リケーン被害で民間備蓄が放出されたケースがあるが、国家備蓄の
放出はこれまで例がない。
 国連安全保障理事会は今月六日の国際原子力機関(IAEA)理
事会を待って制裁措置を含む具体的な行動を取る方針を決めている
。イランは国内でウラン濃縮活動を継続する考えを示していること
から、政府内では「制裁発動が現実化する恐れは徐々に高まってい
る」(外務省幹部)との見方が広がっている。
 ロシアがイランの濃縮活動をロシア国内に移す妥協案を提示して
いることから「当面は交渉が継続する」(外務省筋)と分析。「制
裁が発動されても段階的に実施される可能性が強い」(同)との見
方が有力だ。
(産経新聞) - 3月3日3時9分更新
==============================
http://www.europe2020.org/en/section_global/150206.htm
EUROPE 2020 ALARM / Global Systemic Rupture

March 20-26, 2006: 
Iran/USA - Release of global world crisis 
The Laboratoire europeen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020
 (LEAP/E2020) now estimates to over 80% the probability that 
the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the 
most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall 
of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic 
and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. 
This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number 
of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all 
the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American 
or Israeli military intervention against Iran. 
In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis 
to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.

An Alarm based on 2 verifiable events
The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken 
by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. 
the United States and Iran:

--> on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening 
the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, 
available to all oil producers of the region ; 

--> on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve 
to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount 
of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward [1].

These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes 
and the consequences of the historical transition in progress 
between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium 
in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much 
as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses 
and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade 
throughout the international system.

A world crisis declined in 7 sector-based crises
LEAP/E2020's researchers and analysts thus identified 7 convergent crises 
that the American and Iranian decisions coming into effect during the last week 
of March 2006, will catalyse and turn into a total crisis, 
affecting the whole planet in the political, economic and financial fields, 
as well as in the military field most probably too:

1. Crisis of confidence in the Dollar
2. Crisis of US financial imbalances
3. Oil crisis
4. Crisis of the American leadership
5. Crisis of the Arabo-Muslim world
6. Global governance crisis
7. European governance crisis

The entire process of anticipation of this crisis will be described 
in detail in the coming issues of LEAP/E2020’s confidential letter ? 
the GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin, and in particular in the 2nd issue 
to be released on February 16, 2006. These coming issues will present 
the detailed analysis of each of the 7 crises, together with a large set 
of recommendations intended for various categories of players (governments 
and companies, namely), as well as with a number of operational 
and strategic advices for the European Union.

Decoding of the event “Creation of the Iranian Oil Bourse priced in Euros”
However, and in order not to limit this information to decision makers solely, 
LEAP/E2020 has decided to circulate widely this official statement together 
with the following series of arguments resulting from work conducted.
Iran's opening of an Oil Bourse priced in Euros at the end of March 2006 will be 
the end of the monopoly of the Dollar on the global oil market. 
The immediate result is likely to upset the international currency market 
as producing countries will be able to charge their production in Euros also. 
In parallel, European countries in particular will be able to buy oil directly 
in their own currency without going though the Dollar. Concretely speaking, 
in both cases this means that a lesser number of economic actors will need 
a lesser number of Dollars [2]. This double development will thus head 
to the same direction, i.e. a very significant reduction of the importance 
of the Dollar as the international reserve currency, and therefore a significant 
and sustainable weakening of the American currency, in particular compared to the Euro. 
The most conservative evaluations give ?1 to $1,30 US Dollar by the end of 2006. 
But if the crisis reaches the scope anticipated by LEAP/E2020, estimates 
of ?1 for $1,70 in 2007 are no longer unrealistic.

Decoding of the event “End of publication of the M3 macro-economic indicator”
The end of the publication by the American Federal Reserve of the M3 monetary 
aggregate (and that of other components) [3] , a decision vehemently criticized 
by the community of economists and financial analysts, will have as a consequence 
to lose transparency on the evolution of the amount of Dollars 
in circulation worldwide. For some months already, 
M3 has significantly increased (indicating that ≪ money printing ≫ 
has already speeded up in Washington), knowing that the new President 
of the US Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, is a self-acknowledged fan 
of ≪ money printing ≫ [4]. 
Considering that a strong fall of the Dollar would probably result 
in a massive sale of the US Treasury Bonds held in Asia, in Europe and 
in the oil-producing countries, LEAP/E2020 estimates that the American decision 
to stop publishing M3 aims at hiding as long as possible two US decisions, 
partly imposed by the political and economic choices made these last years [5]:

. the ‘monetarisation’ of the US debt
. the launch of a monetary policy to support US economic activity.
… two policies to be implemented until at least the October 2006 ≪ mid-term ≫ 
elections, in order to prevent the Republican Party from being sent in reeling.
This M3-related decision also illustrates the incapacity of the US 
and international monetary and financial authorities put in a situation 
where they will in the end prefer to remove the indicator rather than try 
to act on the reality.

Decoding of the aggravating factor “The military intervention against Iran”
Iran holds some significant geo-strategic assets in the current crisis, such 
as its ability to intervene easily and with a major impact on the oil provisioning 
of Asia and Europe (by blocking the Strait of Ormuz), on the conflicts 
in progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the possible recourse 
to international terrorism. But besides these aspects, the growing distrust 
towards Washington creates a particularly problematic situation. 
Far from calming both Asian and European fears concerning the accession of Iran 
to the statute of nuclear power, a military intervention against Iran would result 
in an quasi-immediate dissociation of the European public opinions [6] which, 
in a context where Washington has lost its credibility in handling properly 
this type of case since the invasion of Iraq, will prevent the European governments 
from making any thing else than follow their public opinions. 
In parallel, the rising cost of oil which would follow such an intervention will 
lead Asian countries, China first and foremost, to oppose this option, 
thus forcing the United States (or Israel) to intervene on their own, 
without UN guarantee, therefore adding a severe military and diplomatic crisis 
to the economic and financial crisis.

Relevant factors of the American economic crisis
LEAP/E2020 anticipate that these two non-official decisions will involve 
the United States and the world in a monetary, financial, and soon economic crisis 
without precedent on a planetary scale. 
The ‘monetarisation’ of the US debt is indeed a very technical term describing 
a catastrophically simple reality: the United States undertake not to refund 
their debt, or more exactly to refund it in "monkey currency". 
LEAP/E2020 also anticipate that the process will accelerate at the end of March, 
in coincidence with the launching of the Iranian Oil Bourse, 
which can only precipitate the sales of US Treasury Bonds by their non-American holders. 

In this perspective, it is useful to contemplate the following information 7: 
the share of the debt of the US government owned by US banks fell down to 1,7% in 2004, 
as opposed to 18% in 1982. In parallel, the share of this same debt owned 
by foreign operators went from 17% in 1982 up to 49% in 2004. 
--> Question: How comes that US banks got rid of almost all their share 
of the US national debt over the last years?

Moreover, in order to try to avoid the explosion of the "real-estate bubble" 
on which rests the US household consumption, and at a time when the US saving rate 
has become negative for the first time since 1932 and 1933 
(in the middle of the "Great Depression"), the Bush administration, in partnership 
with the new owner of the US Federal Reserve and a follower of this monetary approach, 
will flood the US market of liquidities.

Some anticipated effects of this systemic rupture
According to LEAP/E2020, the non-accidental conjunction of the Iranian and 
American decisions, is a decisive stage in the release of a systemic crisis marking 
the end of the international order set up after World War II, 
and will be characterised between the end of March and the end of the year 2006 
by a plunge in the dollar (possibly down to 1 Euro = 1,70 US Dollars in 2007) 
putting an immense upward pressure on the Euro, a significant rise 
of the oil price (over 100$ per barrel), an aggravation of the American 
and British military situations in the Middle East, a US budgetary, financial 
and economic crisis comparable in scope with the 1929 crisis, 
very serious economic and financial consequences for Asia in particular 
(namely China) but also for the United Kingdom [8], 
a sudden stop in the economic process of globalisation, a collapse 
of the transatlantic axis leading to a general increase of all the domestic 
and external political dangers all over the world.

For individual dollar-holders, as for trans-national corporations or political 
and administrative decision makers, the consequences of this last week 
of March 2006 will be crucial. These consequences require some difficult 
decisions to be made as soon as possible (crisis anticipation is always 
a complex process since it relies on a bet) because once the crisis begins, 
the stampede starts and all those who chose to wait lose.
For private individuals, the choice is clear: the US Dollar no longer is 
a “refuge” currency. The rising-cost of gold over the last year shows 
that many people have already anticipated this trend of the US currency.

Anticipating… or being swept away by the winds of history
For companies and governments - European ones in particular - LEAP/E2020 
has developed in its confidential letter ? the GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin -
, and in particular in the next issue, a series of strategic and operational 
recommendations which, if integrated in today's decision-making processes, 
can contribute to soften significantly the "monetary, 
financial and economic tsunami" which will break on the planet at 
the end of next month. To use a simple image ? by the way, one used 
in the political anticipation scenario ≪ USA 2010 ≫ [9] -, 
the impact of the events of the last week of March 2006 on the “Western World” 
we have known since 1945 will be comparable to the impact of the Fall 
of the Iron Curtain in 1989 on the “Soviet Block”.

If this Alarm is so precise, it is that LEAP/E2020’s analyses concluded 
that all possible scenarios now lead to one single result: we collectively 
approach a "historical node" which is henceforth inevitable whatever the action 
of international or national actors. At this stage, only a direct 
and immediate action on the part of the US administration aimed 
at preventing a military confrontation with Iran on the one hand, and 
at giving up the idea to monetarise the US foreign debt on the other hand, 
could change the course of events. For LEAP/E2020 it is obvious 
that not only such actions will not be initiated by the current leaders 
in Washington, but that on the contrary they have already chosen 
"to force the destiny" by shirking their economic and financial problems 
at the expense of the rest of the world. 
European governments in particular should draw very quickly all 
the conclusions from this fact.

For information, LEAP/E2020's original method of political anticipation 
has allowed several of its experts to anticipate (and publish) in particular : 
in 1988, the pproaching end of the Iron Curtain; in 1997, 
the progressive collapse in capacity of action and democratic legitimacy 
of the European institutional system; in 2002, the US being stuck in Iraq’s 
quagmire and above all the sustainable collapse of US international credibility; 
in 2003, the failure of the referenda on the European Constitution. 
Its methodology of anticipation of "systemic ruptures" now being well 
established, it is our duty as researchers and citizens to share it 
with the citizens and the European decision makers; especially 
because for individual or collective, private or public players, 
it is still time to undertake measures in order to reduce significantly the impact 
of this crisis on their positions whether these are economic, political or financial.


コラム目次に戻る
トップページに戻る