Clark noted that an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry, Mohammad Javed Asemipour, responsible for establishing the petro-bourse, had first said that the platform for trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals would start functioning in Mach, 2005, but the decision was postponed to early 2006. Asemipour had indicated that other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries – Iran are OPEC’s no 2 producer after Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." This will make petrodollar hegemony unsustainable.
Clark added that "Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."
"Others familiar with Iran’s economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened. Iran’s oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."

"…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility." This should be clear to even laymen as high prices only fatten profits of US energy multinationals and speculators, insiders into the workings of Washington.
In April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to Euros; (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. The last two criteria have been fulfilled, with euro trading higher than dollar and the euro-based E.U. expanded from 12 to 22 countries in May 2004. UK remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).

The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petro-euro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades.

How will the US Federal Reserve react?  “Will the neo-conservatives (in Bush Administration) attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism?”

There have been frequent reports that egged on by neo cons, US is planning military options for an attack on Iran's nuclear installations.  Other reports concern likely attacks by the regional outlaw , Israel , which had also destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in early 1980s .Israel reportedly possesses a horde of 100 nuclear bombs and follows policies disapproved almost by all . The Israelis and Zionists have exploited Europeans guilt over the Holocaust and its moneybags can defeat any US lawmaker who even utters a word against its illegal actions .None of the two candidates spoke a word against Israel’s policies in the Middle East, which even Israel’s friend and almost an ally in the region Turkey described as state terrorism.
 
Consequences of another irrational operation, now against Iran;

Clark concluded, “A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petro-euro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’

In case of such an irrational undertaking, the Monterey Institute of International Studies in an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, warned:
"Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullahs to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."

"…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran’s international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran’s nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…" one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. "

Iran’s nuclear program;

Is Iran close to making a nuclear bomb and has it violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by restarting its conversion of yellow cake into uranium hexaflouride? No in both the cases. Iran’s actions have only exposed the inequities of NPT, which favor only the have-nots.

Patrick J. Buchanan wrote on Aug 12, 2005 that according to “a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants.” Iran has shown no wish to fight with USA and “if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity” Yes, “if or when Iran goes nuclear, (and) she has a deterrent to intimidation, U.S. freedom of action in the Persian Gulf comes to an end.”

“For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's invulnerability would end. She would enter the world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the better.”

Britain, France and Germany, negotiating with Iran to find a solution to the West created problem are not keen to go to the U.N. Security Council for a vote on sanctions against Iran, as such a resolution would face vetoes by Russia and China, thus dividing the UN between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. How many, even U.S. allies would be willing to support sanctions on the third largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel.
And if USA attacks Iran’s nuclear sites , then Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War College explained in ‘The New Republic ‘, Iran would lash out in retaliation.  It would send “Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S. troops. Incite Hizbullahs to launch rockets on Israel to widen the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the Shiites in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring terror home to the United States.

”In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy into instant cardiac arrest. --Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would be no cakewalk.”