Just kidding. Actually, the dramatic headline is:
"U.S. diplomat tells Iran to back off in Gulf. Burns says U.S. 'will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us'"Which really means "all your Middle East are belong to us." And Burns is not kidding. Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs (a.k.a. official mouthpiece), was giving an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank in the Middle East. Of course, Burns spewed out the usual message about U.S. resolve against the Great Bully of Iran, saying that Iran will not be permitted to dominate the region, bla, bla, bla. And here is the inevitable high-speed-low-drag-super-cool-scare-the-crap-out-of-them photo of an Aircraft carrier steaming toward the Middle East - where else? -that went with the piece:
Go here to read the rest of what was no doubt intended to be yet another cookie-cutter, beat the war-drums story from our most yellow journalists at the Associated Press ... except that this particular article must have slipped by the paid government agent/shill/intelligence officer in charge because it actually contains a shocking substance - a bit of truth.
From Burns? No, we are not in a bizzaro universe where public spokespersons for the State Department tell the truth. The truth never comes out of the mouth of the mouthpiece. Instead, the truth here sneaks out in the form of a response from a prominent Arab in the audience, enunciating the truth about the situation in Iraq (it is a major cluster-f**k of epic proportions) and articulating what leading Arabs think of the latest wiz-bang U.S. idea for yet another war, but this time with Iran (in unison, they all essentially responded with: "haaated it! ... We need that like we need a hole in the head").
Check this excerpt out:
That quote from al-Naqbi was the only bit of truth in the otherwise absurd article. I expect that the person who slipped up and included that in the article will be fired and an internal memo will decree that from this day forward, only quote the mouthpiece and not random, insignificant Arab diplomats in the audience.
Threat to regional stability
Some among the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts complained that American wars in the Middle East were already threatening the region’s stability and asked Burns to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.
“What we are not interested in is another war in the region,” Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. “Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess.”
Note the irony of the sub-title of that section. No doubt the flunky at the Associated Press who wrote that meant that Iran is a threat to regional stability, but the Arabs in attendance at Burns' little talk evidently think that it is the U.S. that is the real threat to regional stability by so royally FUBAR'ing Iraq.
And what may be the outcome of this discontent and contempt for the U.S. among even the Sunni Arabs? Well, the article closes with this:
Burns’ speech appeared to respond to similar comments by Iranian officials in Dubai and Bahrain last month. In December, Iran’s top national security adviser, Ali Larijani, appealed to Gulf Arabs to shut down American bases on their soil and instead join Iran in a regional security alliance.
The Arab ruling elites may see such a course of action as their only way to satiate what the wonks like to call "the Arab street" and avoid the very real risk of being overthrown by their own outraged populations after the U.S. retreats from Iraq and thus appears least likely to be able to intervene in any given country where an uprising may occur. Hatred of the outside invader and empire, combined with a very real stability concern, can be strong enough to cause such a burrying of the hatchet between even bitter rivals.
If such a security alliance forms, the next step just may be a move to the Euro as the currency of choice for trading in oil, perhaps in Iran's fledgling Oil Bourse. If that happens, the U.S. will be done as a major power because our dollar will become worthless.
At this time, all that really makes the dollar worth anything is the willingness of individuals, organizations, and governments to use the dollar as a convenient specie for trade, such as for trading in oil. Without that, Federal Reserve Notes are worthless as there is no reserve, and they are not really even notes. Not that the Euro is any better, intrinsically, but the countries producing the Euro have not pissed the rest of the world off like the U.S. has.
And once the Arab oil producing nations begin to use the Euro to trade oil, the Euro will essentially be backed by that oil while the dollar will be backed by .... anybody? Anybody? That's right boys and girls, the U.S. dollar will at that time be backed by essentially nothing.
And then, "all our base will belong to them" who hold Euros or oil.