Blah blah Energy blah blah Gas blah blah Oil blah blah World War 3
The current Iranian nuclear power dispute is the start of a new world order based around energy - and we're on the wrong side of the fence.
In the olden days, after World War 2, it was fairly easy to work out who was on what side.
There were communists and religious states who didn't want the societies of greed of the western world pissing on their well-controlled parade. And there was the west, who didn't really give a shit as long as they had a wall, nuclear weapons, and a load of cash to do what they liked funding tin-pot capitalist slave trades to make the stuff they didn't need.
Things have changed.
None of the politics of the 20th Century work any more, because none of them take into account a distribution of resources that are going to run out. Energy. In our lifetime. In the next 50 years. Gone.
Gas price increases of over 25% and £5 a gallon fuel are just the start. This year the UK became energy-negative, and things are only getting worse. The same is true of America and Europe.
The major energy-positive holding states are the Middle East, Russia and China.
Russia and China have been getting friendlier over recent years. China is growing, and Russia's cheap gas supply is a neat way of powering it. China's communist sweatshops are busy making crap for the westb(ironically primarily energy inefficient goods) which is being spent buying up most of the energy it can find.
Russia have always been aware of the energy strength of the middle east - that's why they got involved in Afghanistan back in the day, and have reasonably chummy relations with Iran.
It's no surprise then that it's China and Russia that are keeping a lid on the fuss about Iran making nuclear power. Iran's fundamentalist and agressive stance against Israel makes the West nervous about exactly what the nuclear stuff going into Iran will be used for.
But apart from the undemocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia and of course the west-imposed state of Israel, the other middle east states prefer doing business with Russia and China because they don't see those countries wanting to impose a new way of life on them.
Which of course is why Bush is in Iraq, trying to set up a US stronghold right on Iran's doorstep, and trying to spread a culture of greed and secure one of the world's biggest oil supplies, before it's too late.
But if Bush's plans for Iraq backfire, which let's face it is likely, then not only will Iraq become anti-American again, but it will also have a common enemy with Iran which is likely to ease the friction they have with each other.
Consequently, with Russia owning all the gas, the Middle East owning all the oil, and our Western world's economies growing at a fifth of the pace of the economies of China, Russia and India (all grew by 15% plus last year), the energy we need simply won't be coming our way.
One solution is a return to nuclear power, which as a recent SDC report pointed out, would make prime terrorist targets and fuck up the world.
Another is the destruction of our energy-hungry societies and turn them into self-sufficient self-sustaining communities.
But self sufficient communities have one big problem - there's no room for capitalism.
So Bush and those that follow him will turn the argument into something else. Into freedom. Into anti-Islamic crusades. Into our ''right'' to share in the energy of the world.
That will mean an end to friendships with states like Saudi Arabia, since ultimately they need a strict Islamic state to hold their unelected societies together.
And then, here in the west, with no energy and no religion, cars abandoned on the streets, you'll have only one choice to make.
Whether it's all worth fighting for or not.